"Vote for the Democrat . . . Whatsername. NOT SCOTT BROWN."
Posted by: Mike ||
01/15/2010 08:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yes, my day hasn't officially started until I make my coffe, sit down to watch the local morning news, and get my "Three Minutes of Hate" from the SEIU, DSCC, and the Coakley campaign back to back to back...
President Obama will announce today that the administration plans to enact fees on the nation's largest financial firms in order to recoup the losses expected from TARP.
Let's all move our funds to the non-largest financial firms, now the playing field will be tilted.
As has been reported, this proposal has been under discussion since August.
A senior administration official said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday night that President Obama feels strongly that he "must honor both his personal commitment and the legal commitment of the TARP to ensure that all of the costs are borne by the financial industry and not by the American taxpayer."
"The president has made clear from the very beginning that taxpayers would not bear a penny of the costs of the TARP program," this official said.
When asked how the administration will make sure that fees are not passed on to customers, the senior administration official said that these financial institutions have a "competitive incentive" to not do that because it is not a fee on the entire financial industry.
"If those people chose to pass on those costs, they would face a competitive disadvantage from the far far larger number of financial firms who are excluded from this fee."
"It will just seem beyond the pale to the typical American to hear of the bonus pool in the 10 to 15 to 20 billion level in the coming weeks and then suggest that the only way thtat they could pay this financial crisis responsibility fee back to the American taxpayer is to pass on the cost to lenders," this official said. "I just don't think it's going to happen for competitive reasons and I don't think it would fly well to customers and borrowers."
The senior administration official stressed that TARP was designed to help out the economy as a whole and not bailout specific institutions or their executives and said the fee is a "minimum" of what is owed back for the significant costs that taxpayers put out.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh shit, that means the banks will screw their customers even harder than they are now doing.
Apparently Obullshit, doesn't realise the cash doesn't come from the Bank's vaults, but indirectly from our pockets, Probably doesn't give a shit either.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/15/2010 0:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Going to be interesting for those banks that have already paid back their TARP funds, with interest.
#4
If it's only aimed at the largest institutions, the targets may at least look into accepting the damage to their egos from breaking themselves into smaller pieces not subject to the fees.
#5
The proposed fee would only apply to banks with assets of more than $50 billion, a relatively small number of banks. If these banks really can pass on higher costs to consumers, then it implies an extraordinary level of monopoly power in the industry, with the large number of small and mid-size banks not providing effective competition to the largest banks. -- Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research, quoted in WSJ. The logical next step, in that scenario, would be to force the breakup of the largest Pig Men.
(For those still considering some sort of ill-advised protest vote, or staying home, this is a must-read. [David] Bumped. - promoted by Bob)
Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.
You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.
You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.
Pissed? Me, too. Not just because I supported Mike Capuano. I'm frankly pissed about Washington, DC. Things are going very wrong -- President Obama was absent from the process as the public option was killed, and would rather tax public servants in the middle class with so-called "Cadillac health insurance" then ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Health care reform is heading toward a route where more money comes from the middle class, with about half going to people who need health care, and half going to the insurance companies. Oh, and Guantanamo is still open while American soldiers walk the streets in Baghdad and Kabul. Remember Employee Free Choice? Meanwhile, Harry Reid races to catch Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's farts on Capitol Hill.
But I don't think Senator Coakley wants to torture people, give the obscenely rich a tax refund, or tell a rape victim to hospital-shop until she can find the care she needs. Senator Brown does. And the right-wing, desperate to believe it's been forgotten how they ruthlessly dimmed America's power and pride over the last eight years, is pouring as much corporate money as possible onto our airwaves. Disciples of failure are already slavering over bullrushing one of their own into the Senate.
So suck it up and vote Coakley on Tuesday. If you stay home on Tuesday, and a smirking Jim DeMint puts his arm around Senator Brown next month, will you feel good about yourself? Will you take pride in your "message" when Tom Coburn assigns Scott Brown the task of maintaining the filibuster on any health care reform? When you see Scott Brown publicly wetting his pants over terrorists getting American justice, or the latest moron who fails in an inept plan to hurt our country, will you think "Yep, I'm the reason he's there to embarrass Massachusetts on the Senate floor."
I think some folks are already getting a message. The mortal scare the DC Dems are feeling this week about the voters of Massachusetts -- Massachusetts! -- considering walking away. They can read polls, and they realize what they've wrought. Maybe Reid, Nelson, heck even Obama needs a primary next time around, I don't know.
But nowhere on the ballot will be an option to send a message to DC. Your and my only choice is to send a Senator. And that Senator should be Martha Coakley.
#2
President Obama was absent from the process as the public option was killed, and would rather tax public servants in the middle class with so-called "Cadillac health insurance" then ask the wealthy to pay their fair share.
With unemployment hovering in the double digits and House Democrats eager to move on to the politically crucial task of job creation, President Obama pledged Thursday to publicly champion the health-care legislation that in the past year has consumed much of their attention and often made them targets.
Speaking at the House Democrats' annual retreat, Obama sought to reassure the lawmakers as they enter a political climate that has already inspired some Democrats to retire rather than seek reelection in November. "I'll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain," he said in the visitor center in the Capitol.
Obama seemed to acknowledge the political realities of the legislation, which Congress is on the verge of passing. He praised lawmakers who were willing to "make tough choices sometimes when they're unpopular," and he singled out Reps. Baron P. Hill (Ind.) and Tom Perriello (Va.), who backed the health-care legislation even though their districts are conservative. Many Democrats who could face tough election races in November opposed the bill.
The three-day event, which will conclude Friday after a speech by former president Bill Clinton, is making clear that Democrats are eager to get beyond health care to start focusing on the economy. A group of business leaders, including Michael Todman, an executive at the appliance maker Whirlpool, and Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, spoke to lawmakers, along with labor leaders such as Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
"Look, as important as health care is, and as front and center as it is in the Beltway, when I go home . . . they care about health care, but they're focused on jobs," said Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), a member of the House leadership who helped organize the retreat. "They know without a job, there's not an awful lot of hope of them getting health care."
Obama's appearance, which lasted more than a hour, came in an unusual setting for the start-of-the-year retreat: the Capitol. Seeking to portray themselves as hard at work rather than relaxing as millions of Americans remain unemployed, Democrats eschewed their usual three-day trip to Kingsmill Resort and Spa in Williamsburg in favor of an auditorium at the visitor center.
Nearly every element of the retreat reflected the considerably less optimistic place Democrats found themselves compared with last year. Back then, the biggest complaint among the Democrats was that Obama was spending too much time trying to negotiate with House Republicans on the stimulus bill.
A year later, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House's science committee, is among the members who have decided to retire instead of run for election in the face of what appears to be an anti-incumbent mood. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, argued in a detailed presentation Wednesday night that the Democrats' political situation is not like what they faced in 1994, when they lost the majority, in part because Republicans remain unpopular.
Lawmakers in the House are increasingly frustrated not only with Republicans but also with Democrats in the Senate, who they think have weakened the health-care bill and blocked or failed to act on a number of other initiatives.
"I think the caucus is sitting on the edge of our seats, and they are getting angrier by the moment because of the inaction of the Senate," said Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.).
A new poll taken Thursday evening for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget – an Alexandria VA survey research firm – shows Scott Brown, a Republican, leading Martha Coakley, a Democrat, by 15.4% in Tuesday's special election for the open Massachusetts US Senate seat. The poll of 946 likely voters was conducted by telephone using interactive voice technology (IVR) and has a margin of error of +/- 3.19%.
This is the first poll to show Brown surging to such an extent. A poll from the Suffolk University Political Research Center – published Thursday morning by the Boston Herald, but taken earlier – had Brown moving ahead by 4%.
The special election is to fill the seat held by the recently deceased Edward Kennedy. Kennedy, a Democrat, served in the US Senate for 46 years. A Brown victory could stall legislation supported by the Obama administration, including health care.
What follows are the questions asked in the poll with the responses:
1. Thinking about next Tuesday's special election for US Senate. The candidates are Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley. If the election were today, who would you vote for? If Scott Brown press 1, if Martha Coakley press 2. If you are undecided press 3.
1. Scott Brown 53.9%
2. Martha Coakley 38.5%
3. Undecided 7.6%
2. And do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Scott Brown? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If you are undecided press 3.
1. Favorable 60.5%
2. Unfavorable 27.5%
3. Unsure 12.1%
3. And what about Martha Coakley. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Martha Coakley? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If your undecided press 3.
1. Favorable 38.5%
2. Unfavorable 50.5%
3. Undecided 11%
4. Thank you. Only a small percentage of all voters will cast a ballot in this Tuesdays special election for US Senate. How likely is it that you will actually vote in this election on January 19th? If you will definitely vote press 1. If you might or might not vote press 2. If you probably wont vote press 3.
1. Definitely will vote 71.9%
2. Might or might not vote 21.4%
3. Probably won't vote 6.8%
5. Now, let me ask are you a male or female? If you are male press 1, if you are female press 2.
1. Male 43.3%
2. Female 56.7%
6. Thank you. Now for the last question. Do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or something else. If a Republican press 1. If a Democrat press 2. If something else press 3.
1. Republican 20.3%
2. Democrat 36.6%
3. Something else 43.1%
#2
I was just reading this, coincidentally, and reliving all the pathetic "repressed memory" pogroms in the 80's and 90's. Those people who prosecuted, consulted as psychs, et al, should be beaten within an inch of their lives and incarcerated (as their persecuted victims were). I have no sympathy for real child abusers, but this was a political stepping-stone on the lives of real people for sack-suckers like Coakley. If they had any semblance of grace they'd find solace in a bottle of bourbon, and a bullet. Satan waits for them
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/15/2010 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
Big Labor got some big love from President Obama and congressional Democrats yesterday after they agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping "Cadillac tax" on high-cost health-care plans until 2018The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won't be as lucky -- they'll have to cough up almost $90 billion.
The 40 percent excise tax on what have come to be called "Cadillac" health-care plans would exempt collective-bargaining contracts covering government employees and other union members until Jan. 1, 2018. In another major concession to labor, the value of dental and vision plans would be exempt from the tax even after the deal expires in eight years, negotiators said. Under the plan to help fund health-care reform, the tax would kick in for plans valued at $8,900 or more for individuals and $24,000 or more for families. That's slightly higher than the $8,500 and $23,000 thresholds in the bill passed by the Senate last month. The threshold will be even higher for certain plans with many older workers and women -- a move to benefit unions with a high proportion of female membership, sources said.
New York labor leaders -- who had initially campaigned against the Cadillac tax, favoring instead a surcharge on the wealthy -- said they are thrilled. I just bet they are!
"We can live with it. We have an agreement that nothing will be taxed until 2018," crowed George Boncoraglio, regional president of the Civil Service Employees Association. I'd like to be able to live with it, too. Here we are again, our "Government" (meaning us rubes) foots the bill for Unions.
Officials said the deal was thrashed out over more than 15 hours of negotiating at the White House that ended after midnight Wednesday.
Powerful unions were well-represented around the bargaining table. Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians.
Stern has been among the most frequent visitors to the White House over the last year, showing up more than 20 times, according to logs.
Originally, the Cadillac tax included in the Senate bill was estimated to raise $149 billion through 2019. But Trumka said the exemption would reduce that amount by $60 billion -- money that negotiators will now have to find elsewhere, or reduce the coverage in the legislation.
Boncoraglio said CSEA leaders were meeting in Albany -- preparing to wage a major offensive against the tax -- when their Washington lobbyist called and briefed them on the changes.
Obama backs the Cadillac excise tax, citing economists who say it would drive down costs by encouraging insurance companies to offer employers and workers a chance to buy lower-cost health plans to avoid the levy. In other words, less coverage. Everybody is now equal. Except for Union and Government employees. They are "special".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/15/2010 10:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Absolutely outrageous. Union members should vote NO on this and share the pain with their neighbors.
#2
I'm in a union (mandated by position) and received a card last Dec. to send to The White House pleading against the tax. We did not have a "vote" in the matter. I threw the card away (I guess that was my "NO" vote.), hoping that Zero and the gang would go ahead with it, thus finally getting through to many of my bone-headed union bretheren.
Too bad he caved, but the Equal Protection Clause / Fourteenth Amendment could kill the exception. Let's hope there is someone in Congress with the testicular fortitude to look into this.
As cut and pasted from another post: I got my bi-weekly paycheck today - increase in Fed taxes by 1.45%. Not a lot of $, but most assuredly a "Tax Hike," and I'm anything but "Wealthy."
The lies of this administration become increasingly apparent. The question is what, if anything, the voting population will do about it....
#4
as Uncle noted - won't stand up to an Equal Protection challenge, just like the whore-purchases (Ben and Mary)
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/15/2010 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Uncle Phester, your tax rate didn't change, only the amount of withholding. It gives the Government a tax-free loan of your money. You will get it back when you file next year. This in a time of near-depression. Take more money out of private circulation. They were hoping no one would notice such a small amount.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/15/2010 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Deacon Blues, I wouldn't be so sure that I'll be getting it (the interest free loan depriving me of use and, possibly, profit = defacto tax increase) back next year....
#8
And for those of us in the Clueless Socialist Workers Paradise of California, we already had a 10% increase in withholding courtesy of exactly the same liberal politicians/thieves. 3 more years of this, and Bambi doesn't give a crap about anything but the institutionalization of his socialist agenda, salting the civil service ranks forever with liberal managers and lawyers, further salting the federal bench, and letting the regulations and executive orders he has/will issue constrict the noose of governance ever tighter.
Folks, in case you haven't thought of it, I'm beginning to wonder if my feelings aboutwhat my goverment has become are similar to those of the founding fathers...before they founded the present government. We are slipping into a place where the people who run the government think they really are our Masters, and plan to keep it that way.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/15/2010 22:37 Comments ||
Top||
#11
write note to selves - next revision to the Constitution add entry to the effect that voters get the option of none of the above which upon plurality vote bans all listed candidates in that category for any office for 10 years.
#1
"Fresh from his triumph in securing the Olympics for Chicago and in negotiating the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty, President Obama focuses his stellar powers of persuasion on the special election . . . "
Posted by: Mike ||
01/15/2010 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"...hoping to follow up the big Democratic gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia..."
#3
Well, I got my bi-weekly paycheck today - increase in Fed taxes by 1.45%. Not a lot of $, but most assuredly a "Tax Hike," and I'm anything but "Wealthy."
The lies of this administration become increasingly apparent. The question is what, if anything, the voting population will do about it....
#4
I'm seeing reports now that The One is going to parachute in to Boston on Tuesday to campaign. If she ekes out a win, he can take credit; if not, the spin will be that the situation was too far gone, Coakley was a hopeless loser candidate, it's not Obama's fault, et cetera.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/15/2010 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It appears he will grace us with his presence...
Source: Obama to visit Bay State to help Coakley
A year ago, this is the probably the final nail in Brown's coffin. Today? It could be the final nail in hers.
#7
I am a long time Mass resident and what I'm seeing is unprecedented.
In the past we would go through entire federal election cycles without hearing more than 1 or 2 ads for the Dems.
I just drove downtown and in the 10 min. drive I heard at least 6 attack ads against Scott Brown including 1 from the DNSSC 3 different times!! They were all vicious and filled with lies and half truths.
One of the good things about politics in MA has always been that the Dems were so overwhelmingly in control you weren't subjected to this constant stream of bile, incredible.
Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown's 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey's margin of error, the underdog's position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It's a Brown-out,' said Paleologos, director of Suffolk's Political Research Center. “It's a massive change in the political landscape.'
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state's attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
#2
Was this poll before or after his early 80s cosmos photos were discussed.
If after, maybe, some dem wimmin looked at his photos and said "I like"?
After all they are accused of voting for "Handsome" in the past.
#3
the "I'm too good to go out to Fenway and shake hands" could not have helped Coakley either...
Posted by: abu do you love ||
01/15/2010 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I will still be super surprised if Brown wins. However, he is forcing the dhimocrats to spend money and capital in a place they thought was safe. So it is a win of sorts no matter what.
Oh, and Brown took in 1.3 million in a money bomb effort from people all over the country. Match that you elitist dhimocrats. Or even the damn RINO RNC elitists for that matter.
#5
Do we need poll watchers; someone or someone from (SARC)?:
1. Jimmy
2. Chicago
3. Zimbabwe
4. Haiti (although they are a little busy right now)
5. ACORN
6. Black Panthers
7. Justice Department
8. SEIU
I guess Kennedy coat-tails are a little short. Just maybe the good people in Taxachusetts are getting tired of getting ripped off, taxed, sending money to Washington and getting nothing back, and having a failed universal health care plan that doesn't work. And then throw Barney Frank and his shennanigans with sub-prime loans into the mess. I know that is a repugnant thought. Oh, did I mention a donk candidate that looks and acts like Leona Helmsley.
#9
The fact that this election, in this state of all places, is close has got to have more than a few Democrats in congress looking over their shoulder.
#11
I doubt the polls because the people of Mass are soo blue its hard to believe they would not elect a Democrat. For those of you pointing at Mitt remember he won on a somewhat liberal platform.
#13
If Brown wins it Dem attormeys will sue to keep Brown out until enough "absentee" votes are "found" to get Coakly in...
Posted by: Boss Snomotle8280 ||
01/15/2010 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Sarge: from all accounts, Brown's closer to Mitt Romney than Palin or a Sen. Coburn. He's a Republican, but a New England Republican.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
01/15/2010 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#15
#12 I don't live anywhere near MassachusettEs, but I sent him 50 bucks after I heard him say, "It's the PEOPLE's seat"!
Posted by Gomez Threter7450
Donating to specific candidates I do. Donating to the RNC, sorry,'no can do.'
#17
As a citizen of Mass I'll be surprised (but very gratified) if Brown wins, and I'll do my part to help that. Too bad my 17 year old son will miss being able to vote in such an historic election by less than a month.
Brown truly is a New England Repub, thus essentially a RINO. But IF he wins I hope he'll remember who put him there and why - the 2010 elections should be huge in determining which way he goes in terms of RINO-ness.
I think Coakley's biggest problem has been ... Coakley. Her performance over the past week or so (the absolute presumption of a shoo-in victory, the shoving incident, the Fenway and Catholic voters pedial insertions, and we've still got 4+ days to go ...) makes John Kerry look charismatic and charming. She's been bad enough to turn traditional Dems against her strictly on personal grounds.
#18
"This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose." From article in Beavis post.
Obama's radical agenda is the problem. The people around him are the problem. His not telling the truth is the problem. The partisan politics are the problem. The back door deals are the problem. The donks just are not willing to say it is their radical ideology their shennanigans that the American people are having trouble with.
#19
Let's see.. with the "I'm too good to go out to Fenway and shake hands" and the Chuck Schumer endorsement, all she needs is A-Rod to come out for her and she's in!
Posted by: regular joe ||
01/15/2010 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Brown truly is a New England Repub, thus essentially a RINO.
A RINO by Texas or by New England standards? If the former then by Massachusets standards he is a gum chewing, knuclke-dragging, gun-toting, Bible thumping neo-con
#21
It becomes very difficult to elect a majority leader when you are willing to concede 14 senate seats. A RINO who is willing to vote for a trunk majority leader is better than a Democrat who elects a donk. Unless you enjoy being in the minority.
#22
The money bomb has continued rolling at a clip of over 1 million dollars every day this week. It is almost all online and the average donation amount is 50 bucks.
This guys is really a people's candidate.
Compare that to the closed to the press and public fundraiser Coakley had in DC, mainly healthcare lobbyists pharmaceutical lobbyists union chiefs party officials and liberal group leaders.
#23
Mods, promise me that you WILL break out the Flying Pig and crank the ululator to 11 if the peopel of Mass "fire another shot heard round the world" by putting Brown in the Senate.
As the Senate race tightens and charges of "special interest" money are being thrown around by nervous Democrats trying to salvage the flagging Coakley campaign, the timing of her Tuesday night D.C. fundraiser couldn't have been better.
Thanks to Washington Examiner reporter Timothy Carney, we now know that the event at Sonoma Restaurant, a posh wine bar, was attended by a laundry list of Washington's most high-powered lobbyists.
Each of the 24 named "hosts" of the event raised $10,000 or more for Martha Coakley. Of those 17 are currently registered as Washington lobbyists and 15 of those have health-care related clients, including all the major drug companies, a number of major health insurers and medical device firms.
In fact, the prospect of rubbing elbows with the possible 60th Democratic vote for a new health care bill was so compelling it even brought out former Republican Rep. Jim Greenwald of Pennsylvania. Greenwald, of course, now heads the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), whose members would make out quite well in the current incarnation of the House and Senate bills. The bills both continue the ban on the reimportation of drugs and would give firms 12 years of exclusivity on all biologic drugs (before any generics could be produced).
Coakley told a reporter the Tuesday night D.C. schmooze-fest had been planned as a "unity event" after her primary win. Guess we now know a whole lot more about those with whom she intends to be "united."
She might have at least waited for the coronation.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Isn't it ironic that this Boston Herald article mentions former Republican rep. Jim Greenwald. He is the Chairman and CEO of (BIO). Back on 04/01/2009, BIO awarded, then Republican, Arlen Specter as a legislator of the Year. (LINKY)
Later that month, on 4/28, Specter switched over to the Dem side, to become the then 59th Senate vote.
On 6/28, it became 'official' that Franken had won his seat. There ya go, follow the money!!
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/15/2010 9:17 Comments ||
Top||
The man once described by teachers' union leaders as "the antithesis of everything we hold sacred about public education" was chosen to serve as state education commissioner by Governor-elect Christopher J. Christie on Wednesday.
The nomination of Bret D. Schundler to the post underscored the governor's determination to press ahead with his push for school vouchers, more charter schools and merit pay for teachers.
It was the first selection by Mr. Christie to suggest even the possibility of a confirmation battle with Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature. Thus far, the governor-elect has chosen nominees heavy on managerial experience, if lacking in drama or outsized personalities, and drawn bipartisan praise for his selections.
Mr. Schundler, 50, was a favorite of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and a leading voice for school-choice advocates during his nine years as mayor of Jersey City, but he failed in two runs for governor, in 2001 and 2005.
"We agree on the type of significant reform that needs to happen in our educational system here in New Jersey," Mr. Christie said in making the announcement at the State House. "I want a strong, reasonable, bold leader who's going to help me implement those policies."
Still, some of the ideas that made him a polarizing figure to unions and Democratic leaders have become more mainstream, with even President Obama signaling interest in merit pay and promoting the expansion of charter schools. On Wednesday, the teachers' union issued a statement that refrained from criticizing the choice.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
On Wednesday, the teachers' union issued a statement that refrained from criticizing the choice.
Probably because they're in shock.
Question for the professors at Rantburg U: Is any research addressing the question of the public's view of teachers' unions? or are there any criminal investigations of teachers unions going on anywhere in the country?
#3
Here's a data point for you: when I was a teacher, I was a member of the union. Both my kids go to Catholic schools. That's no coincidence.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/15/2010 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
i home-school my younger son. the local district said that his special needs were offset by the hard work my wife and i did at home (he was performing near grade level) and the school could game the system until he moved to middle school with conferences, intervention meetings, consultations until he hit middle school where the process would start fresh. the special needs coordinator told us off the record that if our skin was brown or if we had a more affluent last name, he would already be getting help. they also suggested we move to a different district.
our other child (senior high now) stays home on the 'special attendance days' where enrollment levels are calculated for the tax money. screw-em. the drawing for the ipod (given to student attending that day) is rigged anyway. friend of family that works for district said he has been prohibited from giving grade of F for any reason in his classes and they drill for 2 weeks to the exception of all other activity before standardized tests. if there was any option (vouchers) there would be total stampede. one the 3 private schools within 40 minute drive all have tuition in excess of $10K a year and even with the high cost, waiting lists.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
01/15/2010 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
PEOPLE IN Massachusetts are understandably frustrated. Next week's special election comes in the midst of a too-long Senate debate on health care, showcasing much of what is offensive about the rules of the Senate. The fact that a final bill hasn't even emerged has left many people ready to toss away the whole thing. Stir in the anxiety that comes with a still-faltering economy, and voters are angry.
Both major-party candidates for Senate reflect something of that mood. Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley, after more than two decades in law enforcement, is no pie-in-the-sky dreamer. Thoughtful and empirical, she views issues like a lawyer building a case. She promises hard work and no illusions. And in some cases, that means scaling back the ambition of government programs to carefully monitor what works and what doesn't. Like the consumer-protection lawyer she is, she looks for measurable results.
Republican State Senator Scott Brown, who drives an old truck, channels voter skepticism more directly. Ignoring signs of improvement in the economy, he casts President Obama as the source of today's problems, and would give the Republicans enough votes to block, under Senate rules, anything Obama wants to do. Affable in person, Brown nonetheless seeks to be a terminator, stopping the Democratic domestic agenda in its tracks.
In Massachusetts, the expected result of a Senate election is a Democratic victory, so Brown wins points for being different. He even entices voters to give him a try, noting that they can toss him out after three years.
Rarely has a pitch been more misleading. A vote for Brown is hardly a symbolic protest against congressional gridlock and the ways of Washington. It's a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That's what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's a vote for gridlock...
Damn right, and beats the hell out of Dem's running amok.
#3
Oh the Globe's lefty credentials were second to nobody's long before the Times showed up.
An interesting fact about Brown? His wife is a reporter for Channel 5 which is like the most liberal TV station in town. She's been there about 20 years. And she is smoking hot...
#4
Also their website has yet to run with the latest poll story showing Brown leading. All Haiti, all the time. Probably trying to figure out how to rig one that show's Coakley up by 30. It really is Panic Time in Lib Land. Flopsweat, spittle flying panic time. Never ever thought I'd see it, but I am enjoying it...
One of the major problems is there was pretty much NO DEBATE AT ALL on this POS they are cramming down our throats, put together with backroom deals and closed meetings with union and lobbyists, locking out the public and the other party.
Are the editors that disconnected from reality that they think they can get away with utter bullshot like that in public?
Reminds me of a SciFi short story I read as a kid. Gov't had become so "efficient" that laws were passed overnight and implemented within a week. This was so inimical to the human condition that a Dept of Sabotage was set up to throw sand in the wheels of the legislative juggernaut. Don't remember the author, but it does have a Heinlein-ish sort of flavor.
Sarah Palin has been portrayed as the devil - with lipstick as horns - on the cover of a Left-wing British magazine. Setting a new standard for subtlety, are they? Easier to do this than to portray Mohammed (PTUI). And safer ...
The Republican sabre-rattler, who ran as John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was pictured on the front of the New Statesman. Picture's at the link. See for yourself... It's irritating, poorly done propaganda. Whatever happened to leftie artist pride?
I find it highly amusing. Did you notice how burstingly phallic her two lipsticks are? A case could be made the artist was experiencing castration fears as he carefully pasted the pre-existing photos together. I would have gone with a pen-and-ink cartoon styling instead, if only to prevent the slightly discerning from thinking of a fifth grade social studies project.
The former Alaska governor, who famously described herself during that campaign as a 'pit-bull with lipstick', is seen as a potent symbol of America's resurgent Right. As support for President Barack Obama wanes, Mrs Palin is increasingly being tipped as a candidate for the 2012 election -- although she has not yet admitted she intends to run. Probably doesn't know herself if she is yet...
She continues to raise her profile among grass-roots Republicans, whose party -- although divided and leaderless -- is expected to destroy the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority in November's mid-term elections. The Dems can't quite bring themselves to believe that the public doesn't like their positions, leaving them with the uncomfortable conclusion that the public doesn't like them personally.
This week the 45-year-old mother-of-five made her debut as a 'regular commentator' on the conservative Fox News Channel. Interesting move. Dangerous, too, if she's not genuine...
But many viewers who saw her on The O'Reilly Factor, the highest-rated of the network's primetime shows, may have felt a bit let down. Media critics said she was unable to 'get off being a candidate and politician.' She's most recently been a candidate and a politician so that's what they had to talk about.
However, given her self-acclaimed roll to represent the 'real people' of America and her strong working-class support, these teething troubles may not prove to be much of a stumbling block to her career ambitions. At some point she's going to be talking about things other than being a candidate and a politician. She's going to have to do it every time she's on Fox. Mike Huckabee's been doing quite a good job of it -- though paradoxically lessening my comfort level with the thought of him as presidential material...
She contrasted herself with President Barack Obama who she said does not 'get' ordinary American folk and hence his approval rating is sliding down the polls. 'Of course they're sinking,' she told the host Bill O'Reilly. 'It was just a matter of time before more of that reflection of the people's uncomfortableness [sic] that they feel towards this administration is manifesting in these poll numbers,' she offered. There's a certain proportion of people who favor social democracy. They're not a majority. Those who don't favor it soon enough figure out the scam.
'There is an obvious disconnect between President Obama and the White House, what they are doing to our economy and what they are doing in terms of not allowing Americans to feel as safe as we had felt.' These words will chime well with 57.4 per cent of discontented Americans who think their country is on the 'wrong track'. Only 35.5 per cent think it's on the right one.
The New Statemen points out in its article that although Mrs Palin is the third favourite to be the next Republican presidential candidate she is the only figure with a current high profile.
However, she faces much criticism within the party, whose supporters favour former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and ex-Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee ahead of her.
Y'all will have noted that it's former governor Romney, ex-governor Huckabee, but Mrs Palin. No doubt that's what passes for subtlety at the Daily Mail.
During her 10-minute segment, O'Reilly quizzed Mrs Palin about a new book about the 2008 campaign which criticised her shortcomings as a candidate. Game Change, by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, includes unflattering recollections by Steve Schmidt, the former campaign chief of Mr McCain.
Poor Bill O'Reilly doesn't even get the courtesy of a Mr, but only the dismissing surname address of a valet or a lady's maid. Is the Daily Mail known for classist pretensions?
However, claims she struggled to pronounce Joe Biden's surname while preparing for the debate with the Democrat running mate were simply dismissed as a 'bunch of BS' by Mrs Pailin. She said the authors are just 'political establishment reporters' trying to 'gin up controversy and spin up gossip'.
'The rest of America doesn't care about that kind of c**p,' she added.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is it me, or does her move to Fox seem like an end to her Presidential career hopes. The chance of saying things that would make you unelectable is exponential when you're improving on a news show constantly. That and over exposure.
I still think she'd be great running the RNC though.
#2
It's not just you RJ though I thought the same thing about Huckabee when he began his time on Fox and he's not flubbed anything too badly yet, at least not that I've seen.
But Palin has a chance, as someone noted not too long ago, to become essentially the conservative Oprah. There's potential for enormous financial gain and for her to build a massive media empire. And she never has to run another campaign, it's a win/win scenario for her.
#3
by being on Fox, Palin can harness her star power and constant advisability to mold the debate and start a movement. i think she can do more good for the country in that manner than by running herself.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
01/15/2010 1:31 Comments ||
Top||
A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.
This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.
The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs. And Bush is at fault....somehow
#2
So who decided not to buy new computers? Our country is running behind the curve because someone decided not to buy cheap computers? Heads oughtta roll, don't you think?
#3
Supervisors must have neglected to include a reasonable amount of funding for systems upgrades in their annual budgets. I doubt however, they forgot to include their annual bonuses.
First of all, how old they are? We are no longer in the times where a new computer was about forty times more powerful than a new one. Now it is more like 2 or 3 unless you are doing sveral things at same time or using muli-threaded applications provided those threads are accessing the CPU at same time (instead of waiting for the disk or for you). Then and only can you multiply the 2 or 3 I gave by your number of cores (typically two, sometimes 4)
3) You don't need huge amounts of computer power for Word, Excel or databases. Far less than for games.
So this blaming of old computers for ineffective government looks like a pale excuse for incompetence coupled with an attempt to linen the pockets of a few friends.
#8
I doubt any rational programmer [or one who could remain rational] could develop software that could deal with the byzantine nature of Congressionally organized and empowered government. The real problem is that the government is trying to do too much in the false odyssey that one could control every aspect of human society or perfect that society. There are limits to both operating and sustaining human institutions. We've long ago passed the point of effective and efficient. Now its bailing wire and gum. More power, more power! /apologies to Tool Time Tim
#11
this is expected. Remember the WH Gang came in and immediately wanted to replace all the PC's with Macs. (and no, I don't want to start a religious war here...).
A lot of workers have more powerful PC's at home then they have at the office.
And as usreal with people who don't have a clue - its not what's on the office desktop - which is often used more as a 'terminal' than a 'computer' in most Government offices - its the mainframes, massive databases, and server farms (all with redundancy, backups, disaster recovery plans, etc....) in the back room which are what count.
Besides a government worker isn't supposed to be playing resource-hogging video games or watching porn on government computers anyway aren't they?
#12
You don't need huge amounts of computer power for Word, Excel or databases
Maybe not. But at a minimum you need servers and security infrastructure that don't take 4 minutes to do PKI authentication on an email during busy times of day.
#17
UH, uh, "SON OF ORACLE" [Guam Y2000-n-counting]???
IIRC GovGuam was famously trying to integrate ORACLE into its Govt. OperSys as far back as the Year 2000 plus-minus > AS OF EOY 2009, IT STILL NOT CLEAR IFF THEY EVER SUCCEEDED OR NOT!?
D *** NG IT, MORIARITY, "COMPUTER ZEN" = ITS EVERYWHERE, YET NOWHERE.
The UN wants nations to tax global internet usage and turn the proceeds over to the UN. Considering the long list of financial scandals, the fact that UN programs tend to be generally corrupt, that the UN is not an elected body, and is exempt from transparency requirements such as FOIA, I say we pass on this one.
It's the World Health Organization, which has as much power in this matter as the rest of the UN organizations save the Security Council. In other words, none whatsoever. The international community has been angling for decades for a way to obtain a steady income independent of national donations -- mainly the US -- without success. This is just another bright idea that won't be able to get as far as an actual attempt.
A scientist in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal received economic stimulus funds last June.
As NewsBusters reported on November 28, Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "Hockey Stick Graph," for his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming.
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/15/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Since he is in the UK... what are stimulus funds doing going to the UK?
One of our co-workers looked into NSF stimulus money for his research but it said in bold highlighted paragraphs "All research must be done within the territory of the United States of America". His research population was in Central America so he didn't even attempt to file.
If the gov agency that gave out these funds had a similar warning it would be a criminal offense to even apply for that money.
#2
Mann is at Penn St. The funds probably were for grad students and for himself to do research at that institution.
Posted by: lord garth ||
01/15/2010 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
An inconvenient truth: the conclusion was developed and the data fudged to support the conclusion and oh, the political agenda. A rigged scientific process.
#4
Grants and funds to colleges and universities will continue to those who can advance 'their' agenda. Mann was merely giving them the information they wanted. (Skewed/fudged data).
Nothing more than another bribe.
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/15/2010 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
OTOH DAWN.PK > ANTI-TERROR WAR HAS PARALYZED PAKISTAN'S ECONOMY, US TOLD.
"SHARE THE -CARE", as PAK needs a BAMMER BAILOUT??
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
President Obama will announce today that the administration plans to enact fees on the nation's largest financial firms in order to recoup the losses expected from TARP.
With unemployment hovering in the double digits and House Democrats eager to move on to the politically crucial task of job creation, President Obama pledged Thursday to publicly champion the health-care legislation that in the past year has consumed much of their attention and often made them targets.
As the Senate race tightens and charges of "special interest" money are being thrown around by nervous Democrats trying to salvage the flagging Coakley campaign, the timing of her Tuesday night D.C. fundraiser couldn't have been better.
A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office. 
