February 17, 2012 · 6:14 pm

HISTORY LESSON; Small Government or No Government?

HISTORY LESSON: SMALL GOVERNMENT, NO GOVERNMENT ?

Louise Annarino

2-17-2012

 

Republican and Libertarian 2012 presidential candidates have followed two themes: small government, or no government. In support of these complimentary positions they rewrite American history, even Mr. History Gingrich who should know better does so.

 

Colonial Americans did not dump tea in Boston Harbor because they opposed taxes; but, because they were unrepresented in the British Parliament. Initially, they did not want  to end government but to participate in it. The corruption and despotism of British monarch George III, the arrogance and disdain of the British Parliament toward colonial interests, and the overriding desire to refill a depleted British treasury following the Seven Years War on the backs of colonists stirred the minds and hearts of the American colonists who began to see themselves as simply “Americans”. They declared their independence from Britain and immediately started designing a government very like the one they overthrew, with some interesting twists learned from native American political structures.

 

For example, the British Parliament has two chambers: the House of Lords (aristocracy), and House of Commons (everyone else). One of the hottest arguments after the revolution was between those who wanted to call George Washington “King-Your Majesty-Your Highness” and those who wanted to avoid all things aristocratic and call him “Mr. President”. Mr. Washington insisted on the latter, and shunned all signs of royalty. Americans chose a bi-furcated legislative body, the Senate and The House of Representatives. Their response to despotism and the threat of autocratic rule was a “separation of powers” between the Executive,Legislative and Judicial Branches of government. “We the People, By the People, and For the People” was born.

 

Initially, they favored a “confederation” of quite independent states based on the Native American “confederation of tribes” model; but, soon recognized the need for a strong federal government, affirmed early on by The U.S. Supreme Court. The failure to directly address the slavery issue and women’s right to vote, despite Abigail Adams’ warning to her husband John to “mind the ladies”, remained a stain on self-government and equal rights for all citizens; and, eventually led to a civil war.

 

I have been watching Ken Burns’ THE CIVIL WAR. It is appalling that after such horrific suffering caused by secessionists and slave owners with the support of Southerners, including West Point graduates, among them Robert E. Lee, who abandoned their oaths to support the United States of America and called it “honorable”, that our current batch of presidential candidates would also suggest secession, states rights, and the honor of the American people as appropriate policy within the Republican Party. The Republican Party, The Grand Old Party (GOP) which gave us Abraham Lincoln as its first presidential candidate. It is shameful;how far the Republican Party has fallen.

 

We must not accept a discussion of secession to be considered a legitimate possibility. To attack President Obama as unpatriotic while behaving so unpatriotically themselves is the height of hypocrisy. They use the threat of secession as a means of attacking a strong federal government; just as it was used to instigate a civil war 200 years ago. Why would they risk such division among our citizens? The same reason they did then…money and power. Racist code talk, outright racist comments, and outright lies about President Obama’s policies and leadership should have been laid to rest 200 years ago.

 

Those, who argue a strong and active federal ( Paul,Perry,Gingrich,Romney et al) or state government (Governors Kasich R-OH and Walker R-WI) takes away our liberty are wrong. If by “government” one means government led by a despot this is true. But WE are the government. WE pass legislation, make rules, interpret laws through those WE elect to represent us in those endeavors while we go about earning a daily living. WE are not despots. WE are not deprivers of our own liberty. WE decide what government does;despite the fact George W. Bush “the Decider” alleged otherwise. The Government is not something apart from ourselves; it is US. When Republican candidates attack government, they attack US. WE are “we the people”. Why attack our governments? Because WE are all that stands in the way of those 1% “aristocrats” who want to make money at our expense. Have we forgotten the our history?

 

In the meantime, they distract us and delude us into thinking our governments, federal-state-local are attacking us. We are under attack, but not by government. Discover and support your own self-interest…your government.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 16, 2012 · 3:47 pm

CYNICISM VS. SKEPTICISM: POLITICIANS ARE NOT ALL THE SAME

CYNICISM VS. SKEPTICISM: POLITICIANS ARE NOT ALL THE SAME

Louise Annarino

2-16-2012

 

In Italian being “cynical” means being “unprincipled”; changing with the wind, switching sides without affecting conscience. A cynical person is an opportunist. “Skepticism” is entirely different. It is core virtue of reason, allowing flexibility of thought and change position based on the disclosure of truth. Cynicism is destructive; skepticism is healthy.

 

As a second generation Italian, Sicilian father and Napolitan mother, I can assure you no one is more skeptical than a Sicilian. It is in our genes. We question everything and everyone. The more powerful the authority, the more skeptical we become. For the upcoming campaign season, I suggest we all become a bit more Sicilian.

 

Negative campaign ads are part of the political climate, and are increasing in intensity. They are destructive for two reasons: first, lies repeated enough appear to be truth; and second, they build a climate of cynicism among voters.

 

Not all campaign ads are the same; neither are the political candidates, nor their parties. Yet, Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Joe Hannity, Karl Rove et al. consistently respond to any criticism of their unprincipled, change in the political wind distortion of past policies and legislation with a shrug “They all do it; Democrats are just as bad as Republicans”. Even  Chris Matthews at MSNBC falls easily into this trap of cynicism. In a recent on-air interview questioning a Republican guest about the extremely negative Republican presidential race, Matthews allowed his guest’s statement that President Obama ran a very negative attack-ad campaign in 2008. How soon we forget the campaign for change based upon hope. This is just one example of the pure cynical revisionism we will hear and see more of as election day nears.

 

Such willingness to behave so cynically destroys are faith in our political process. It drives people away from political involvement. While this may benefit Republicans whose numbers are dwindling due to changing demographics, an unwillingness to change, or to exercise flexibility of thought. However, it does not serve well the Democratic party. We need to get as many voters as possible involved in the political process, and to the polls. Our numbers are greater. Their best hope is to turn our hopeful voters into cynics. We must stop being cynical; and, instead be skeptical.

 

Not all political attacks are untrue. When President Obama warns that Republicans intend to dismantle/privatize Social Security he is basing this so-called “attack” on statements of fact by Republicans. Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney et al. have each proposed privatizing Social Security and Medicare, differing only on whether it would be a partial vs, complete privatization;and, each would raise the minimum retirement age. Their proposals would effectively gut funding, making the current program which is fully funded for next 30years, unsustainable. A cynic would argue that President Obama is engaging in negative attacks just as Republicans attack him – citizenship, patriotism, socialism etc. They are not the same. Cynical ad hominem attacks are a poor substitute for policy attacks.

 

A skeptic would check out the Republican proposals to see if what President Obama alleges is true, check out President Obama’s own proposals; then, decide whether his or her initial impressions were accurate. A cynic would merely ignore the cognitive dissonance such truth-telling engenders, shrug and say “politicians are all the same”. Cynicism never improved a single thing; it does not promote positive change. Only skepticism can do so.

 

Let’s get skeptical! Sing it out in tune to Olivia Newton John’s “Let’s Get Physical”…now, I am dating myself!

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 14, 2012 · 5:50 pm

OUT IN THE OPEN

OUT IN THE OPEN

Louise Annarino

2-14-2012

Hopefully, this is the last time I shall have to discuss the Roman Catholic Church and the opposition of its Pope and its most conservative of Bishops to progressive political theory, and at times, to President Barack Obama.

I will not discuss the church’s theological positions. It is none of my business. Catholic women are not part of the church hierarchy and have no positional power within its ranks. Some may have personal power with particular members of the church hierarchy; but, personal power is ephemeral at best. Therefore, I am not entitled to any opinion on theological teachings. That has been clear since my baptism.

However, as an American, I am entitled to an opinion on its espoused political positions, and its corporate climate. I am also entitled to question whether as a religious institution it has any right to take a political position. Jesus’ response to his religious hierarchy “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s”, Matt 22:21, is not simply a basis for the separation of church and state; although, one could argue such. It was his brilliant repost to a group of rabbis trying to trick him into taking a political position, or to discredit himself as a rabbi. Jesus himself had made it clear he was not a political Messiah, John18:36. The Pharisee rabbis were trying to prove otherwise. The Roman Catholic Pope and Bishops would be wise to follow Jesus’ lead. They are not political Messiahs. They are behaving like Pharisees. Their objective is political and financial power, in the guise of religious freedom. No one has asked them to deny their religious teachings, or practice their faith as they see fit. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, President Obama adjusted the political and financial demands of women’s preventive health care to eliminate any possible religious entanglement argument. The church has been outed;it’s outcry was never about religion. It has always been about politics.When the Bishops met 7 months ago to prepare an attack on President Obama’s health care mandates, they behaved like Pharisees, trying to protect their turf from the President they view as the usurper.

Let’s be clear, a church hierarchy which has treated women and children as second class citizens and done little or nothing to protect them; and, has in fact attacked them with impunity ( witch hunts, pedophilia) posits it should be able to deny any woman, Catholic or non-Catholic, comprehensive preventive health care. Really? For, now that the issue of providing insurance coverage for such care is off the table, the only thing remaining is the health care itself. The Bishops’ continuing opposition is simply opposition to women’s comprehensive preventive health care, period!

Thank you, President Obama, for making it so clear. Now, let us ignore the Pharisees and move on.

At age 10 I wrote a letter to then-Senator John F. Kennedy, and received a personal reply. I sent him several pages  listing American Catholics from pre-revolution through 1962 who had served America without becoming a tool of the Catholic church. Presidential candidate Kennedy was deemed an unacceptable candidate since many believed the Roman Catholic Church would try to use him to foster its own agenda, in violation of the separation of church and state. Senator Kennedy used my research in his debate with Richard Nixon. He was the first Catholic elected President of the United States.We know from history that it is dangerous to mix church and state. Millions have died over the centuries as the church imposed its will on the state. Many fled to the wilderness of America to avoid oppression resulting from merger of state and religion. President Kennedy had to overcome this perceived threat. Now, politicians struggle to affirm their willingness to be guided by religious institutions in matters of state. The backlash, should this not be prevented, has a long and bloody history. Women have never fared well under church dominated state action.

I am weary of those arguing the state is denying them the right to practice their religion. They have no right to force me to practice their religion! I have a right to the same comprehensive preventive health care as any other woman, no matter who is my employer; just as I have a right to minimum wage, unemployment benefits etc. Religious belief has no place in determining who is eligible for employment benefits.

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , ,

February 9, 2012 · 4:20 pm

MONEY SPEAKS TO CITIZENS UNITED

MONEY SPEAKS TO CITIZENS UNITED

Louise Annarino

2-9-2012

 

Money speaks louder than words

which fall on deaf ears

plugged into Ipods

and Live

Streams.

 

And we poets must shout

to be heard above the din

of millions, nay billions

tuned on, seeping into

the unaware conscience.

 

Money

too often speaks

louder than words.

 

Money

too often

speaks louder

than words.

 

Money

too often

speaks

louder than

words.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

February 9, 2012 · 3:55 am

A SLAP IN THE FACE

A SLAP IN THE FACE

Louise Annarino

February 8, 2010

 

In the 8th grade, I experienced the Sacrament of Confirmation at my parish church along with the other 8th. graders at St. Francis De Sales Catholic School. Preparing for the big day was so exciting; we would be confirmed by the Bishop.

 

That night I dressed in a fancy dress and wore the gold crucifix given me by my parents. My cousin Dolores who was my sponsor processed into church by my side. Mom had pinned my first gardenia corsage on the dress near my left shoulder, just like a grown woman would wear it. I was ready to affirm my faith. I had chosen the name Bernadette,asking St. Bernadette Soubirous to guide my life.

 

When the Bishop began  questioning us on matters of faith I was the first to raise my hand. I yearned for the grace of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity of God, to descend upon me. Suddenly, it was time to approach the altar rail and kneel. As a female in 1962, this was the closest I was permitted to approach the altar. My knees and shoulders shook as I awaited the bishop’s approach. Since I was so short, I was the first to be confirmed.

 

The Bishop annointed my forehead with chrism, blessed balsam oil; and, continued with the “laying on of hands”. Next, he slapped my cheek, the sound echoing sharply off the back walls of the church. I heard a loud gasp among the on-lookers. The Bishop looked horrified, as did the other confirmees awaiting their turn.

 

I winced from the pain. We had been told to expect a small slap as a symbol of our willingness to defend, and suffer for, our faith. But, I didn’t expect my head to snap to the side from the impact. Nor did the poor bishop. His strength surprised him. He was quite gentle with those who followed. His handprint was still visible on my cheek at the celebration party, hours afterwards.

 

The effect of this sacrament is intended to give the courage and strength to deal with spiritual conflict as adults. It did so for me. When I took that slap on the face in confirmation, I was ready for any spiritual conflict life threw my way. I did not expect it would be my own church which would continually slap me in the face. Just as I did not see the pain coming from the bishop’s slap, I did not see it coming from my church.

 

I was aware that my church, and most others, have caused spiritual conflict for centuries. We learned about the Inquisition in grade school religion classes. We discussed the racism and sexism within the church in high school religion classes. And, while we learned of the church’s shortcomings, we also learned the social justice teachings of the church. We watched our priest and nuns march for civil rights, oppose unjust wars, and fight for those on death row. We learned the people of the church, including its clergy, are human. We had faith good would triumph over evil.

 

The horror of sexual abuse and rape of our boys and girls by priests wounded us immeasurably; but, the cover-up nearly destroyed us. For many of us it was the last straw; not, for our faith’s survival, but for our willingness to accept the leadership of the church hierarchy, a hierarchy which believed it was exempt from state law and common humanity.

 

The church has become increasingly political, ignoring the separation of church and state unless it benefits financially from the separation. Like all organizations, its first priority is the survival of the institution, at any cost. “At any cost” is the key.

 

The church now opposes full implementation of The Affordable Health Care Law. If it were based on its moral teachings, this position is sound. I believe it is a political, not a moral position. Consider the following from an on-line statement by James Salt, Catholics United:

 

  • No one is being forced to use contraception against their will.  The new rules simply require that employees have access to these services. Individuals who are opposed to the use of contraception do not have to make use of the coverage.
  • Churches are exempt from these rules.  The new rules require that institutions that employ and serve non-Catholics, such as hospitals and universities, are required to include contraception coverage in their health insurance plans.  No Catholic church or diocesan office will be affected.
  • There will be fewer abortions because of this decision.  Regardless of your beliefs about contraception, everyone should recognize that greater access to prevention services will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies.  Fewer unplanned pregnancies will result in fewer abortions.  And despite many false claims to the contrary, the contraception covered by this rule does not include abortifacients, like RU-486, that induce abortion.

 

Additionally, clergy and politicians are wrongfully, and knowingly, alleging that the insurance coverage required for all women would include abortifacients and abortion services. It does not do so. They are also ignoring the fact that President Obama and Kathleen Sibelius allowed a one year delay for the church in order to open discussions about how to implement the requirement without causing a crisis of conscience.

Why does the church lie to its members? Why does it allow and promote political attacks based on lies? Why does it escalate lies, and obfuscate truth? Is it trying to save itself, at any cost?

Why such an attack on women? Does the church oppose insurance coverage for penectomies, Viagra, STDS? Why is it only women’s health which is under attack? This has NOTHING to do with the church’s anti-abortion teaching. The required insurance coverage only covers contraception. Contraception is that which prevents the conception;not birth. 98% of Catholic women use birth control. Why is the church so afraid of contraception? The church teaches that the only purpose of copulation is conception. No sex allowed unless a woman agrees to possible pregnancy. Seriously? Does any thinking adult believe this reflects a moral high-ground ? The only conclusion I can reach is that misogyny led to such a stance. Keep them barefoot and pregnant.  Okay, now I am ranting. I admit it. Perhaps all that grace from confirmation has made me a female warrior, a woman willing to engage in spiritual conflict, even with my own church. Maybe, I have had one too many slaps.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , ,

February 7, 2012 · 12:55 pm

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING ?

Much Ado About Nothing ?

Louise Annarino

February 7, 2012

 

So much of what we read and hear about politics is “much ado about nothing”; while the important information is hidden on a back page, relegated to the lower left-hand column, or never reported. This is partly the result of voice votes scheduled or delayed until late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. For example the vote for Medicare Part D, after 2 days of debate in the House was wrangled to final vote, 216-215, in the very early hours of June 27. The Senate version passed on June 26, and the conference bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. When it appeared the vote would fail (219-215) if allowed to proceed to the few final votes the House Republican leadership held the vote open for hours, convincing members to change their votes, passing (220-215) at 5:50 a.m. I recall staying up all night and watching this happen on C-Span. When it was suggested that then-representative Nick Smith (R-MI) switch his vote to “aye” if he wanted substantial and aggressive campaign support” (C-SPAN microphones picked up some of this conversation.See Wickipedia for explanation from Rep. Smith) from  from the Republican Party for his son who was replacing him, I realized this poorly constructed bill would pass. Finally, the problems have been corrected under Obama’s Health Care Affordability Act; the Donut Hole has been closed. Last night, the Transportation Department reauthorization bill was similarly manipulated by Republicans late evening.

The Proposed Transportation Reauthorization Bill  is a vital part of our economic recovery, maintaining  old jobs and creating new ones. It covers surface, rail and air transportation.

Below, are the hi-lights of the bill; one can easily see the importance of passing the bill:

Funding Highlights:

• Provides $13.4 billion in discretionary resources in 2012, a $1.3 billion decrease from 2010 levels. (This figure excludes $109 billion in obligation limitations for the surface transportation plan. Including surface transportation obligation limitations, Department of Transportation’s total budgetary resources increase by $53 billion over 2010.)

• Includes a six-year, $556 billion surface reauthorization plan to modernize the country’s surface transportation infrastructure, create jobs, and pave the way for long-term economic growth. The President will work with the Congress to ensure that the plan will not increase the deficit.

• Jump-starts productive investment and stimulates job growth with a first-year funding boost of $50 billion in 2012.

• Provides $8 billion in 2012 and $53 billion over six years to reach the President’s goal of providing 80 percent of Americans with convenient access to a passenger rail system, featuring high-speed service, within 25 years.

• Includes $30 billion over six years for a pioneering National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of regional or national significance to the economy.

• Continues to invest in the Next Generation Air Transportation System—a revolutionary modernization of our aviation system.

• Initiates Transportation Leadership Awards to create incentives for State and local partners to pursue critical transportation policy reforms.

• Reduces funding for Airport Grants, focusing Federal support on smaller airports, while giving larger airports additional flexibility to raise their own resources.

Click to access transportation.pdf

The above provisions are what President Obama sought; but, not what he is being asked to sign. Approval came after more than four years of disagreement over various provisions, which led to repeated short-term extensions and neither growth nor stability. The most recent short-term extension of the FAA funding will expire Feb. 17. If the President vetoes the bill, projects now in place could be shut down, and thousands of workers lose their jobs, creating even more unemployment.

Adding union-busting provisions to this bill were part of changes proposed in the Republican-controlled House Transportation Committee,and supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A Republican-led effort to weaken rules governing union organizing at airlines and railroads was resolved in a compromise between the House and Senate. But unions are rightly angry with both Republicans and Democrats that new provisions seriously toughen requirements for holding elections. The vote to unionize a workplace moves from 35% to 50% of the workforce voting “aye”; and, non-voters would be counted as “nays”. Think how such a system would affect political elections; definitely an unfair and undemocratic system. Judges would no longer review National Mediation Board Rule changes; public hearings would replace that more efficient and less politicized procedure.

It appears that the bill eviscerates public transportation by rail, subway etc. by changing their funding source. It has been difficult to find details of what actually passed late last night versus what had been discussed during the day. News sources are vaguely supportive of the bill without fully disclosing what the final bill includes. What routinely happens is that this will soon become and old story, and no additional details will be reported upon. We the people will be left  with a bad taste in our mouth for both parties: those greedy self-serving Republicans, and those weak-kneed, caving Democrats. Neither of these descriptions is entirely true. If we stay on this story, we can readjust the flaws within this law. Don’t let this story fade from your memory. It is NOT much ado about nothing. The workers, our middle class, need voters with long memories and a willingness to pay attention.

It is easy to blame Democratic Senators and Congresspersons, and President Obama when he signs the bill into law) for “caving” to Republicans. But consider what was at stake.  Senator Cantwell (D-Wash) expects at least 12,000 jobs to be created in her state as a result. It moves the airports from outdated radar to the safer global positioning technology. It allows projects underway to continue without delays. it provides certainty so that other projects can be funded and get underway.

But make no mistake. This Law undermines the middle class and America’s workers. Long term those issues will have to be addressed. Changes will have to be made in new legislation regarding labor and union rights. This is one more example of Republicans holding our President and the Democratic Party hostage.The Republican Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al. must be held accountable for such blatant attacks on the middle class.

As President Obama stated repeatedly during the 2008 campaign “We are the change that we seek”.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 6, 2012 · 4:04 pm

NO TALKING POINTS

NO TALKING POINTS

Louise Annarino

2-6-2012

I won’t tell you what to say

or how to say it

other than

be true.

Talking points are easy

but unsound

on principle,

and unprincipled.

I prefer to tread

on facts, rely on

committed acts

of reason and reality.

And, only state the obvious

which, too, is easy

to understand

and repeat.

And repeat.

And repeat.

And repeat.

A hat trick.

Three goals in a row:

get out the facts,

get out the truth,

get out the vote!

Leave a comment

Filed under POETRY

Tagged as ,

February 4, 2012 · 6:37 pm

MR. POTTER VS. GEORGE BAILEY

MR. POTTER VS. GEORGE BAILEY

Louise Annarino

February 4, 2012

Mr. Potter and George Bailey are both characters the 99% have come to mistrust: bankers. But, the community of Bedford Falls, a community of 99ers, doesn’t mistrust George Bailey.He is the hero of IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, a beloved community leader.

Each man understands and follows sound business practices.Each seeks to make his business profitable. And, each hopes to make a good life for himself. Each pursues the American Dream.

Bedford Falls knows George Bailey understands their plight and is willing to fight for them. He is even willing to fight his fellow banker, on their behalf. For, Mr. Potter has set himself apart from the community of Bedford Falls. He has become an economic dictator, who relishes his superior wealth and economic position, and believes he alone knows best what enterprises should be funded and who is allowed to pursue economic freedom from his control.  Businesses rise and fall on his whim, guided by is ability to “cash in on” a given business enterprise. George Bailey stands in his way to total domination of Bedford Falls.

Sound familiar? Mitt Romney and Mr. Potter are men of a single mind, the mindset of the Republican Party. George Bailey and Barak Obama are men of a single mind, the mindset of the Democratic Party.

Some progressive Democrats are angry that President Obama is willing to associate with and confer with bankers, just as George Bailey did. Banks are an economic engine for our communities. Of course President Obama must engage the expertise of that community to restart America’s economic engines. His choices may not always have been ones we agree with, but the 99% can trust him to do his best to save our communities as George saved Bedford Falls over the years. George saved his community one member at a time. It was a slow process,often painful and calling for George to sacrifice his own security. George discovers he created not just a good life for Bedford Falls; but, a wonderful life for himself.

At the end of the story, the 99% community of Bedford Falls pulls together to help save the Bailey Building and Loan. In doing so, they save George,themselves and their town. They stop Potter from taking absolute control of their community. The 2012 election offers the 99ers the same opportunity. We can elect President Barak Obama, saving his second term as president;and, in the process save ourselves and our communities.

Nowhere is the distinction between Republican candidates such as Mitt Romney and the Democratic candidates such as Barak Obama more obvious than in a review of campaign fundraising records filed with the Federal Elections Commission.

Only President Obama refuses donations from registered lobbyists and bans them from raising money for his re-election. Others in their firms may make individual contributions. Obama goes even further. Though not required to do so, he discloses everyone who has raised at least $50,000. Mitt Romney is the beneficiary of $2.2 million from registered lobbyists.1

As of 12-31-2011, President Obama has raised $128 million dollars. His largest bloc of 2011 donors are retirees. 1 President Obama’s small-dollar donations,those $200 or less, exceed the overall total raised by any other candidate; and, are one-half of the Obama campaign fundraising total.2  One-fourth of Romney’s campaign chest comes from 41 individuals who have formed a super PAC. As of 12-31-2011, the PAC Restore Our Future has raised $30.1 million dollars for Romney. 4 Ten of the donors have contributed AT LEAST $1 million each. 3 Most recently, a former associate (as is Romney) of Bain Capital, Edward W. Conrad, was disclosed to have made a $1million donation to the PAC as W Spann,LLC. W Spann, LLC was formed in Delaware in March; donated to the PAC in April; and dissolved in July, 2011leaving no paper trail.3

Candidates and their campaign committees are required to remain independent of PACS; but, Romney has made personal appearances at Restore Our Future fundraisers.3  The Stephen Colbert PAC, administered by Jon Stewart is an apt parody.

As of 12-31-2012 President Obama had collected $139,526,311. Mitt Romney had collected $57,112,767.  Republicans allege they are raising many more millions than President Obama, who many analysts believe has been abandoned by Wall Street donors. Hedge fund managers fear proposed tax reforms which will tax their gains as regular income. Mr. Potter of Wall Street is not happy with Mr. Obama. Mr. Potter of the US Chamber of Commerce (the bankers) is not happy with Mr. Obama. I, for one, am happy with President Obama and his willingness to fight the Mr. Potters of the world. My money is on Obama. Is yours?

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/lawyers-rank-third-on-obama-campaign-donor-list-even-with-lobbying-ties.html

2. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

3.http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/02/hedge_fund_moguls_top_list_of_donors_to_super_pac_supporting_mitt_romney/

4.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-relying-heavily-on-small-group-of-super-rich-donors/2012/02/01/gIQAFVB4iQ_story.html

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , ,

February 2, 2012 · 3:12 pm

HOUSING CRISIS: OBAMA AND ROMNEY RESPOND

Submitted by M. D. / Author Unknown

TWO APPROACHES TO THE HOUSING CRISIS

February 1, 2012

Over the last two days, President Obama and Governor Romney have each described their plans to address the housing crisis. Failing to address this crisis means that 10 million families are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure, driving down home prices, deepening the housing crisis and delaying full economic recovery.  So how do the two plans stack up?

 

OBAMA

ROMNEY
PHILOSOPHY “While government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.” [Remarks by President Obama in State of the Union Address, 1/24/12] “But the idea of trying to stop the foreclosure process kept it from occurring, kept the market from bottoming and recovering. You have to let the market work and let home values recover as a result of that.” [CNN,1/31/12]

“Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process.  Let it run its course and hit the bottom.” [Huffington Post,10/18/11]
REFINANCING Sent to Congress a broad refinancing plan that would let responsible homeowners save an average of $3,000 per year. No proposal.
HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS Proposed a single set of rules for borrowers and lenders, including simple and full disclosures and prevention of conflicts of interest and inappropriate foreclosures. No proposal.
UNEMPLOYED HOMEOWNERS Ensured the unemployed homeowners participating in the FHA and HAMP programs could receive at least a year of forbearance.

Major banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have now followed the president’s lead and adopted the same policy.

 No proposal.
PUNISHING FRAUD Formed a joint task force with states and federal investigators from the Dept of Justice, the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. No proposal.
ADDITIONAL STEPS Expanded eligibility for HAMP mortgage modifications to reduce foreclosures.

Increased incentives for lenders to modify loans and help borrowers rebuild equity.

Rehabilitating neighborhoods through Project Rebuild.

 No proposal.

 

 

 

__._,_.___

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

January 31, 2012 · 5:49 pm

March 6 Democratic Primary Ballot, Worthington, Ohio

SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA BY ELECTING LOCAL DEMOCRATS: Vote in the March 6, 2012 Primary

DEMOCRATIC PARTY BALLOT

U.S. SENATE:

Sherrod Brown

3RD. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

Joyce Beatty

Ted Celeste

Mary Jo Kilroy

Priscilla Tyson

Doug Litt

Jim Reese

15TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:

Pat Lang

Scott Wharton

JUSTICE, OHIO SUPREME COURT:

Robert W. Price

Fanon Rucker

Yvette McGee Brown

COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE:

Gary Tyack

Peggy Bryant

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS