More on We Want but...

I may have to eat my words.

As an update to my rant I add these points that may be of interest.
In my own fine state, it appears we close schools while keeping a nice tax break for large boats, I call them lake yachts. According to a report in the KC Star we cannot be sure of the costs to the state,

In the last seven years, the state auditor has asked the Revenue Department three times to come up with such a figure, but revenue officials declined, maintaining that it would “increase the burden of reporting on taxpayers.”

As recently as last month, the auditor noted that “the cost in terms of reduced state revenue for each exemption cannot be determined.”

Read more: In a time of budget cuts, yacht sales sail through untaxed in Missouri - KansasCity.com link

And go to this link for a few states that handled their budget problems differently. Just look for the section marked State Progressives in bold type. In that section will be many more links if you want to be sure of what you read.

Maybe some are willing to pay for what they want. Maybe just maybe I will have to eat my words.

We want but ...

One very long rant here.
Let's see the Neo-cons are back; the Glen-Beck nut-cases are out in force; Limbaugh is still mouthy; Bohner wants to be Speaker of the House; Left Progressives are not happy we didn't just leave the wars; the jobless want jobs; the greedy Bankers want less regulation; big Pharma is sorry it wasted its lobby money; Insurance companies want to insure many more people but without losing any money; we do want the Federal Government to be responsible for making jobs; we do want the Feds to do something about the deficit; we don't like Federal debt; we don't want foreign governments taking our jobs; we don't want foreign corps to own everything; we want security from terrorists both foreign and domestic; we want the right to carry anywhere; we want tougher law enforcement; we want Gitmo closed; we don't want trials “in the homeland” for the terrorists, so-called; we don't want our schools closed; we want a better education for our kids; we want our health care; we want corp. greed punished; we want free speech for all and we do mean all; we want the biggest military-industrial complex in all the world; we want to sell weaponry but we don't want it used; we don't like Social Security unless we are at or near retirement; we need to “fix” Medicare; we want a cleaner environment; we don't want to spend on energy research; we want credit but we don't want big banks to get bigger; we want to get rich on Wall Street. After the fiasco of Greenspan, with his belief in Ayn Rand's separation of economy and state, people are reading Ayn Rand for guidance. (Congressional testimony)( Rand follower ) Oh I know he wasn't a true objectivist. He tried to apply the theory from within. Well, maybe he still is. He did say he saw a flaw but he didn't know how important the flaw or how long it would last.

We want a lot but we don't want taxes raised in any form to pay for anything. We don't even want to cut back on what we already take from the environment. We don't even want to admit that we are responsible for any environmental changes this old world is suffering; that population growth, therefore energy needs grow, is causing some of it. We want bankers, corps, and the fed punished in some way but we want to give all organizations extra free speech. We want Congress to quit taking money for elections from all the interest groups but we want the CEO's able to run ads against or for them and able to threaten them more than they already do. We don't want to give $5 each for election campaigns to lessen the impact of the organizations. We want Congress to pass laws but we don't want our party to give to the other party. We don't like Wall Street investment firms or banks but we want to get our share first. We want to invest but we don't want to know that great investment is financing wealthy foreign corps. We want balanced budgets in our cities, states, and federal government but we don't want to pay more taxes when so many are unable to pay their share. We value families but we want the other guy to work longer hours and more days so he can't spend time with his. We want a great army but no draft. We want people to quit going to ER for the things they should just be going to the Dr.'s office but we don't want to pay for it either.

And when all is said and done we want to throw the bums out because they can't do all these things on nothing. We want to throw the bums out for taking lobby money or the promise of future jobs but we don't like to give them pay raises. We want to throw the bums out for not working together but my congressman/woman needs to be tough, code for stand up for my point-of-view, because I am a conservative, libertarian, progressive, or liberal. We don't like them adding “pork” except for my state. Just what new bums will you believe when they tell you they are going to change Washington. Seems we have heard that before.

This new President too needs to be tough or not depending on who you are. He should or should not talk about the facts from the previous administration. The mess is his now. He should be positive not tell us the truth, We Will have to give some and pay more. If he is really tough maybe he will have to inform us that he tried something and failed. FDR, in the eyes of many, did some great things but he did have to try different ideas and some got knocked down right or wrong. He made some grave errors.
President Obama tried to learn from past Presidents. He let Congress try to put together it's own health care reform. Wasn't that supposedly partly what went wrong with the Clinton health care bill-he didn't let Congress have more say so. Wasn't the Executive Branch out of hand in the previous administration? Didn't that administration get called “the Imperial Presidency”? Weren't there times President Bush was called “King George”?
The new Attorney General needs to quit trying to be a guy who believes in the law until he figures out how to be more political. The Treasury Secretary needs to go because he is too familiar with all that went wrong. No way can he use that information to find a better way. He can wait like others then acknowledge his mistake in believing less regulation was the way to go The head of the Fed. Needs to relinquish power to someone else-but who? The Treasury, the FDIC, who should take the regulation on? Congress?

Here are a couple of anecdotal stories so you can more personally relate to the mess in which we find ourselves.
There is a large county here that is about to close many schools. Parents and non-parents attend meetings to try to stop their school from closing. Their reasons are good reasons. But they either can't or won't offer more funding. The Mayor of K.C., MO has said basically if you don't want some service cut then tell me what you do want cut. Smart man. Not popular for a lot of reasons, but he is “tough”.

Here is another state answer to budget problems.
“Mississippi’s governor is proposing to cut state aid to K-12 schools by over 9 percent, close four mental health facilities, and cut most other agencies’ budgets by 12 percent.” (ref here and pdf here ) The pdf file shows the rankings of “input”, money and the educational results therefrom.

So here we are. We want but don't want. We have our hands out but we don't want other people's hand s out. We want a balanced budget but we don't want to contribute any funds. We want seniors to take less Medicare now but we don't want to take care of them later either. They should help out their kids now or at least get out of the way but when they are in the last years who will pay for their care? Won't it cost more later? We don't like Social Security taxes because we might not get it but we forget it was a pay backwards system in the first place. Don't want your parents living with you from retirement or disability-then pay backwards. Trust me most parents don't want their kids living with them long term or vice versa. We are not the Waltons.

Now do you want to run for office on any level let alone be President. He will get most of the blame for anything not done, or done that someone doesn't like, and in the short term little praise for any small step forward.

Well, I guess he asked for it. I still think though there was probably a minute when he won election with all the newest messes breaking that he asked if there was any way out of the job.

The “beast” is starved and yet enlarged. Let's just hope our debtors are the kind who don't break legs when we can't pay our bills. And when all services are cut I hope you can stay home to take care of your family.
I hope you can educate your own kids, I hope you can nurse your sick, I hope you are in shape to raise your own food or within walking distance to your source of food. I hope your water wells or rivers are clean when you walk down with your water bucket and your dirty laundry-no droughts please. I hope you enjoy your outhouse or the ditch along the paths. Maybe you can barter for some paper to use instead of those rough leaves. Believe me this would not be a fun life. Been there done some of it.

Blogs of Old and Books of Today

While doing further research on another brilliant idea I have, I thought I would go ahead and post this on a book I found.


The other day I found a beautifully bound book Every=Day Thoughts by Ella Wheeler Wilcox, W.B. Conkey Company, Chicago; 1901.

When I removed it from the shelf at our local used book store, I had no idea who Ella W. Wilcox was. The reason I took it from the shelf was the binding. Then I took a further look, a glance at a page or two or more. I had a hard time stopping.
It occurred to me it was a “blog” of 104 “posts” from 1901.

Of course upon further investigation at the computer, I learned about Mrs. Wilcox. She was a poet, everyday man's poetry and she was a philosopher. Actually she was a follower of theosophy. That is a mixture of religion and philosophy.
In her poem “Solitude” she wrote the famous line” laugh and the world laughs with you; weep and you weep alone”. (As you read the wikipedia biography you will find a mention of Sinclair Lewis and Babbitt. Apparently Mr. Lewis did not consider Mrs. Wilcox a great literary genius.)

Many of the “posts” contained in the book are short and to the point. Most are just 2 or 3 short pages.
The author covers many subjects. Most of her writings in this book are in answer to questions posed by her followers, readers. She uses her poetry as a means in some chapters.

Though she considers herself to be a “religious” person, she writes about “Our Empty Churches” (Chapter LX) in response to a young woman

“...telling us that New Yorkers are pagans, because sixty-five percent of us do not go to church.” She answers with some of her theosophy answers. “Every day I am newly surprised to find people I had supposed to be given over to creeds, or to agnosticism, sweeping into line with the great army of devout and forceful thinkers in this new school of theology.”(p. 200)

I put the previous paragraph in here to get your attention. Now that I have it. Here is another “Blog of Old” excerpt in which the Mrs Wilcox gives advice to someone seeking guidance about his unfaithful wife:

“It is one of life's terrible jests, when a man with so much soul and heart and feeling, is mated with a frivolous and worthless woman-- a woman so devoid of the power of appreciation of God's greatest blessings, that she can give up such a love for the cheap pleasures of a third-class theatrical career.”(p. 114)

She writes about “love affairs”. She offers advice to mothers, wives, and husbands on things such money matters, disrespectful children. She writes in one chapter of the need of moderation between seeking poverty or seeking extreme wealth. The author devotes one “Blog post” is on the care of animals. Lest you be misled by the quotation above she is very much for women earning their own way when they have talent.

In all her posts Mrs. Wilcox preaches patience with the changing world. She encourages cleanliness, smiles, and forgiveness. And, thus far in reading from this “blog of old”, I find only one mention of reincarnation. I have not read it all-I hesitate to do so. This book is old and even reading it causes it problems. So I now have to figure out how to keep it in good shape and yet read from it.

In another book written by Mrs. Wilcox, poetry, you will find beautiful, really, “photographic life studies”. Maurine is the title.
hereis the Google Books link.

If you can find some of her “columns”, you will probably find as I have she is a nice person with a “religion” that is quite different. What an interesting person she must have been.

I enjoy these “old blogs” we sometimes call books. But in particular, this book by Ella Wheeler Wilcox is so much like blog posts it is eerie. It also reminds me of some of the books of today-put together and published collections of columns of so-called pundits, or …

The first time I bought a “book” by a present-day columnist, I was disappointed to find it was really nothing but a compendium of columns they had written. I thought I was going to get more of the reasons the columnist writes what he or she writes. I know they are really great writers but hey books are not cheap these days so at least warn me. ( I know I should have checked it out better before I paid good money for it-I was in a hurry.)

Yet, I bought the old one and was thrilled. So, I guess if I can enjoy the “Blogs of Old” I should be more open about the “Books of Today.” After all they are both suited to those of us with short attention spans.

Balanced News? Don't Ask Me

Preface
This started out to be a post on Congress and ineptitude. Then it was about Congress taking over too much power. Then I wanted to write about both parties in Congress saying no to the Exec. Branch. (Rants)
But the more I researched an article I'd read the more I saw another post all together. Then even that changed to what you find below.
Sorry, this is a very long post but I don't want to shorten it. I thought about making it two posts but I don't want to interrupt the flow. I am not really sure how to break it up either. Consequently, the post is extremely long and time consuming. Just what a post should not be. Time is a valuable commodity these days.


Even when you try to get truly balanced news, you end up in a conundrum. (More Circles of Confusion) How does one tell which coverage is balanced? Don't ask me. I don't know. I am actually asking you.

Let's agree for purposes of this post that over-the-air TV and the 24-hour, cable or satellite, coverage is generally short and sweet. But they may give you enough information to seek out more in other news venues. The morning talk shows, the cable, satellite, “news” shows, will sometimes give another little piece of information whether right, center, or left. Now you are on your own. So you read papers or you go on-line and you take a time to check a little more for yourself. Yet, how do you know which article or writing is even trying to be balanced? You may find as I did you'll end up reading an article, trying to find more by and about the author of the article, trying to figure out who his/her real boss is, trying to find out for what the boss really stands(mission statements, other outlets, etc.). Too there are the weekly news magazines and “news” shows but I don't think you want me to get into that.

You could well spend a day or more doing all that investigation and determine you cannot find one person, place or thing that does not have an agenda, thereby a slant when covering the same news item. Of course I remember about psychological testing having, can't help but have, some subjective bias. With the use of statistics, use of large samples, and use of tests that can be replicated, the bias is lessened. However in reporting, writing, and editing, I figure there is bias-No matter how hard the people involved try to give balanced reporting. The reasons are many and the bias not always intended. The reader too comes to each article with a certain bias.

Now on with my search on a story about the Senate passing a bill on Iran Sanctions. The House had passed their version earlier. The two bills must be reconciled in the House-Senate Conference before going to the President.

While reading the NY Times on-line the other day, I saw this coverage: Senate OK's Sanctions on Iran's Fuel Suppliers. link Here is the first paragraph to get you started:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would let President Barack Obama impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline suppliers and penalize some of Teheran's elites, a move aimed at pressuring Tehran to give up its nuclear program.
(Note the use of the words “let President Barack Obama...”)
Please read the article further. At least read the other restrictions section near the end of the article.

I will give you one restriction as it pertains to some of the other articles I found:
Require the Obama administration to freeze the assets of Iranians, including Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are active in weapons proliferation or terrorism;
(Note the use of the words “Require the Obama administration...)

Remember these two quotations were found in the same news item.

Now look at this one from Baptist Press: Senate OKs tougher sanctions on Iran.
Here is the first paragraph:
The U.S. Senate approved increased sanctions on Iran's oil-related imports Jan 28 in a move intended to help prevent the extremist Islamic regime from developing nuclear weapons.

Further into the article :
The Senate's action came two days after Land and 45 other Christian leaders wrote to members of the body asking them to follow the example of the House.
(Land is Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. For further on the letter and those 45 others go here

From an articleYESHIVA WORLD NEWS: Schumer Announces Passage of Iran Sanction Legislation that Strengthens Efforts To Stop Iran From Getting Nukes
first paragraph:
Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 has unanimously passed the Senate. The Iranian regime has engaged in serious human rights abuses against its own citizens, funded terrorist activity throughout the Middle East, pursued illicit nuclear activities posing a serious threat to the security of the United States, the Middle East Region, and our allies. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act strengthens sanctions and supports the President as he pursues a dual track of engagements and sanctions. Schumer, in his role as a Banking Committee member, was instrumental in seeing the bill come to the floor for a vote. The House passed a much narrower sanctions package in December while the two bills now have to be conferenced, Schumer is vowing to fight to ensure the stronger Senate Language prevails.
(Note these words “strengthens sanctions and supports the President...”)

The article mentions a Sense of Congress on human rights and the like.

Turns out Sen. Schumer signs letters to the President also.
Two weeks ago, Schumer signed onto a letter from Senator Even Bayh urging President Obama to consider using sanctions on the books. (I think they meant to consider using the sanctions he had at hand)

You can read the whole letter at the end of the article.


Catholic press 
A very short one paragraph coverage by one of the Catholic press. Mainly it refers to Catholic leaders Bill Hudson and Bill Donahue, members of the above mentioned Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran, and they supported and will continue to work for a nuclear free Iran. They do get two links to articles they wrote on the subject.

At this point I looked for world-view items. HereAl Jazeera English had an older article.
First Paragraph:
The US lower house of congress has approved legislation to levy sanctions on foreign companies that help supply fuel to Iran, as part of efforts to punish Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Further on there are interviews with Congresspeople about the bill. Issues are raised about the “concerns” of “U.S. Trading partners and allies...” And an interview with “Afshin Rattansi, a journalist based in Iran, told Al Jazeera: "I think what is happening in the House of Representatives demonstrates yet again a complete lack of comprehension of what is happening in the Middle East.”

There are more interviews with “supporters” and more reporting on the world views as well as a little of the Iranian views of its “nuclear programme”. The article ends by naming some of the companies involved and how they are reacting.

IPS, Inter Press Service News Agency,-The Story Underneath, had a lengthy article.
US: Obama Losing Control of Iran Policy
Here is the opening paragraph:
In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refiner capabilities.

These paragraphs relate back to the words “let” and “require” as mentioned in the NY Times article:
The contents of the bill require the president to impose the wide-ranging sanctions, restraining the traditional presidential foreign policy waiver to a line-by-line exemption that forces Obama to spend political capital. ... Another aspect of the Dodd bill raising eyebrows is the codification into law of an embargo against Iran by Pres. Bill Clinton in the 1990's. The Dodd bill requires Congress to approve the lifting of the embargo.

This writer, reporter, goes into more on the “human rights” debates. (I recommend you hunt that part.)
The article has much explanation of the maneuvering and has quotations from both Democratic and Republican Senators along with “neoconservative independent Joe Lieberman”. There are interviews with a member of the National Iranian American Council and other groups that support engagement with Iran.

So there you have it 6 articles from 6 different news agencies. Now you tell me which one we should declare as “fair and balanced”. (speaking of “fair and balanced”, I couldn't find much on the Senate passage subject on FOX news I found the AP item and so far 3 anti-Obama comments. If you find more feel free to comment.) I did not search the British news for this post. I am sure it would be interesting, but I really do have a little daily life.



(For a fun look at reporting from the BBC go to sobeale blog and watch the video posted on January 31.)

Hereis a serious look at the state of journalism.

Circles of Confusion

I purposely will not write on the State of the Union address for a while. It is being hashed and re-hashed. I want to listen to it and check out all the "analysis", the many sides, before I even think about writing here. I will wait until the dust settles then maybe I will but, maybe there will be nothing left for me to think about. There are so many great thinkers I may not need to think. (I am just kidding but many do let others tell them what to think.) So here is a post on other things.

After watching Frontline on PBS the other evening I couldn't help myself I had lots of "thoughts" I just needed to put down before I forget them. (Nope I am not just letting them think for me but it was a pretty good reference point.)

First a few definitions regarding "loan sharks", credit, and debt. I do not reference Wikipedia here as we are told it is a liberal reference. (Baloney but I don't want to get stuck in the liberal-or-conservative reference game.)

http://www.answers.com/topic/loan-shark

2 definitions of loan shark:

n. Informal
One who lends money at exorbitant interest rates, especially one financed and supported by an organized crime network.

From the Banking Dictionary: Loan Shark

Lender, other than a regulated financial institution, who makes a business of lending money at rates above legally permitted interest rates. For example, a $5 loan on Monday to be repaid Friday for $6-an annual percentage rate of 1040%, not including interest compounding. Loan-sharking was a pervasive activity through much of the nineteenth century, leading to the formation of cooperative associations, such as mutual savings banks and credit unions, to arrange small loans at reasonable interest rates. State small loan laws generally prohibit loan-sharking, although state laws differ on what is, or is not, an excessive rate of interest.

Now the Law Encyclopedia:

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
A person who lends money in exchange for its repayment at an interest rate that exceeds the percentage approved by law and who uses intimidating methods or threats of force in order to obtain repayment.
In most jurisdictions usury laws regulate the charging of interest rates. Loan sharking violates these laws, and in many states it is punishable as a criminal offense. The usual penalty imposed is a fine, imprisonment or both.
(My italics above.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usury

Definition of Usury:
1. The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
2. An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.
3.Archaic Interest charged or paid on a loan


Now here is a link to the whole Frontline program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist
full

This link is where you can find text or video of the Treasury Secretary Geithner interview for the Frontline program last night.

I was surprised that Sec. Geithner made sense to me in many places. (I had listened to the “one of them” drumbeat and being a lefty I considered that the beaters may know something.) But, I was also struck when he said we can't cap interest rates because some people now need credit more than before. Check out thisinterview with Nessa Feddis. She is a senior counsel and V.P. Of the American Bankers Association.
Ms. Feddis makes almost the same statement Sec. Geithner did in her interview. Or for a interviews on capping interest rates go here.
So, is he, Sec Geithner falling for the if you cap interest we can't make loans or do they all really believe it. Excuse me. I want to yell, if you don't make loans I, the taxpayer, will not make you a loan and will “foreclose” on any loans you already got.

I know it wasn't really a loan. Why, I actually own stock in many financial institutions. Or, I know this is not the way to look at it all. The whole economy could have, I think still could, collapse. I know the terrible “recession” is over. Well, except for many of the real people that walk around or sleep on main street.

This credit fiasco reminds me of the Nation borrowing so much. It is particularly interesting to look at the borrowing from China. We, the tax-payer, borrowed money from China. At the same time we were helping shut down manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by buying Chinese products. So we spent our money to help end US jobs. All the while borrowing the money from the very source of cheap goods made by people who get very little of any of the money we spent.

Or put in another way the nation spent our way further into debt by spending, spending, spending or maybe buying, buying, buying; and borrowing, borrowing, borrowing so we could end much of the manufacturing in the U.S. (we won't even mention the IOU s sitting in the SS files. G.W. Had this one right, those are pieces of paper but guess what they are coming due. So I guess we borrow that too. I'll bet this surprises you I give G.W. Credit for getting something right? Now, does this mean that we senior citizens weren't the ones cannibalizing our children and grandchildren? Yes and No. After all ignorance is bliss. So is playing ignorant.)

I hope that you get the picture it is hard to write a circle or a spiral.

But let me get back to credit and debt:
It is easy to speculate that the population as a whole might see their government cycle of spend and borrow as another justification for their own personal cycle of buy and borrow. I think I remember, it seems so long ago, a budget surplus-don't I remember that or is my mind completely gone? Did we all follow that example? Nope.
gov. savings chart. Now I do realize that other things go along with less saving, or maybe cause it, such as flat wages or no wages. Of course then there is the cost of drugs, “health care” if you will. Add to that the ads for “stuff” and the ads for cheap credit and you have contributed to the downward slope of personal savings.

As to the personal debt problem, we were already using credit in all its forms to have our “Babbittry”* now. I use the term to designate the “stuff” that goes with the attitude. Why wait for that new TV?
Now add to the “instant gratification” attitude of the American Consumer a President of the U.S. telling us one answer to 9/ll was to “spend”, borrow to spend is what many did. We were so used to credit
and debt. So some people used that excuse to get more “stuff”, or a trip, or whatever they justified.

Where was the call to save, or to buy bonds, give your time, something other than spend your money. What money? Use your credit card or overdraft protection: it is just that easy. As the old ads used to say “Buy now pay later!”

So now there are many who cannot even pay the rent, electric bill, water bill, doctor's bill, and on and on, unless they get their over 400% loan until the paycheck or the income tax refund gets to them. And there are still those who get that loan to buy their toys, their Babbittry.*

Now instead of looking at our own failures many will find someone to blame. And are right to do so. Consumers have had lots of help getting into trouble.
There will always be loan sharks for those who need or want them. Though it is not like from the old movies, the feds. aren't going after these loan sharks. In fact after watching and re-watching the interviews, it almost looks as though some government officials either won't touch them because they agree with the the practices, or want to keep their previous and future jobs open.

So I am right where I was about health care in a previous blog. We are all somewhat guilty for the mess. We, meaning many consumers, the shark; the government; and many politicians.

Well, I guess this post will cause a ruckus. So be it.

As Artemus Ward said: "Let us all be happy and live within our means; even if we have to borrow the money to do it." www.famous-quotes.com



*You can find the book Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis, 1922 on Google or you can buy it on AmazonIt is not a fun read in total, some descriptions of daily life are funny, but it is a worthwhile read. George F. Babbitt is a Realtor selling houses in the burbs around Zenith “for more than people can afford to pay.” (page 2) The book jumps right away into the love of gadgetry and newness, justifications, and “keeping up with the Jones” as well as mid-life crises.

Change George Babbitt's occupation to mortgage broker if you like or leave it Realtor depending on where you live and your state's licensing laws.



I give you this "lefty" quotation:

ETHICS -- LOBBYING FIRMS PREPARE TO OFFER JOBS TO RETIRING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: The last few months have been marked by a series of congressional retirements. To date, 19 members have decided that they will not be seeking reelection this November, including the recent retirement announcements of Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND). With all of these Capitol Hill veterans soon to be looking for new work, Roll Call reports that "law firms and lobbying shops are preparing for a flood of résumés from soon-to-be unemployed Members." With so many retirements already confirmed -- "and many more likely to come after Election Day -- K Street's top firms will have their pick of the litter." Since 2005, at least 195 members of Congress have crossed over to lobbying, according to Congressional Quarterly. Some of these former lawmakers were instrumental in lobbying against health care reform last year, as "three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls." "Depending on their committee assignments," retiring lawmakers could see "baseline offers as low as $250,000 for part-time gigs, all the way up to $1.25 million salary packages for former chairmen and party leaders." There is no indication, however, that any of the retiring lawmakers have already begun negotiating post-retirement employment. "Both Senators and House Members have to publicly disclose to the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House within three days of starting negotiations with the private sector. None of the retiring Members has made that move yet."

http://www.americanprogress.org/

Consortiumnews.com

Consortiumnews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Just as I Thought. They Did It

Me finding a hiding place


They Did IT

It is official a corporation is more of a person than you would think.
Sad but true.
All I can say is, I am not surprised.

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

(from the NY Times article)

I can see that the story says unions too. Oh joy. What about Lobbies? What about "citizens' groups"? Small and really small businesses? Let's all have at it! If you have lots and lots of money, have a good time. If you don't, well, sorry. (Not really, no one is sorry for the lack of power for the poor. They might actually have something to say.)
Well maybe the unions will pay attention to their members' wishes. That will be some balance to corporate spending. But, I fear with the loss of power and membership Unions won't be enough.
Maybe, just maybe, Congress will get busy and try again? Nah, they need all the money and future jobs they can get.
As you can probably tell, I don't like this one at all.