SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (69894)6/5/2006 2:00:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361143
 
Shameless in the Senate
________________________________________________________

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
June 5, 2006

The Senate almost voted to repeal the estate tax last fall, but Republican leaders postponed the vote after Hurricane Katrina. It's easy to see why: the public might have made the connection between scenes of Americans abandoned in the Superdome and scenes of well-heeled senators voting huge tax breaks for their even wealthier campaign contributors.

But memories of Katrina have faded, and they're about to try again. The Senate will probably vote this week. So it's important to realize that there's still a clear connection between tax breaks for the rich and failure to help Americans in need.

Any senator who votes to repeal the estate tax, or votes for a "compromise" that goes most of the way toward repeal, is in effect saying that increasing the wealth of people who are already in line to inherit millions or tens of millions is more important than taking care of fellow citizens who need a helping hand.

To understand this point, we need to look at what Congress has been doing lately in the name of deficit reduction.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was signed in February, consists mainly of cuts to spending on Medicare, Medicaid and education. The Medicaid cuts will have the largest human impact: the Congressional Budget Office estimates that they will cause 65,000 people, mainly children, to lose health insurance, and lead many people who retain insurance to skip needed medical care because they can't afford increased co-payments.

Congressional leaders justified these harsh measures by saying that we have to reduce the budget deficit, and there's no way to do that without inflicting pain.

But those same leaders now propose making the deficit worse by repealing the estate tax. Apparently deficits aren't such a big problem after all, as long as we're running up debts to provide bigger inheritances to wealthy heirs rather than to provide medical care to children.

And the cost of tax cuts is far larger than the savings from benefit cuts. Under current law — what I once called the Throw Mama From the Train Act of 2001 — the estate tax is scheduled to be phased out in 2010, but return in 2011. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, making repeal permanent would cost more than $280 billion from 2011 to 2015. That's more than four times the savings from the Deficit Reduction Act over the same period.

Who would benefit from this largess? The estate tax is overwhelmingly a tax on the very, very wealthy; only about one estate in 200 pays any tax at all. The campaign for estate tax repeal has largely been financed by just 18 powerful business dynasties, including the family that owns Wal-Mart.

You may have heard tales of family farms and small businesses broken up to pay taxes, but those stories are pure propaganda without any basis in fact. In particular, advocates of estate tax repeal have never been able to provide a single real example of a family farm sold to pay estate taxes.

Nonetheless, the estate tax is up for a vote this week. First, Republicans will try to repeal the estate tax altogether. If that fails, they'll offer a compromise that isn't really a compromise, like a plan suggested by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, that would cost almost as much as full repeal, or a plan suggested by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, that is only slightly cheaper.

In each case, the crucial vote will be procedural: if 60 senators vote to close off debate, estate tax repeal or something close to it will surely pass. Any senator who votes for cloture but against estate tax repeal — which I'm told is what John McCain may do — is simply a hypocrite, trying to have it both ways.

But will the Senate vote for cloture? The answer depends on two groups of senators: Democrats like Mr. Baucus who habitually stake out "centrist" positions that give Republicans almost everything they want, and moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island who consistently cave in to their party's right wing. Will these senators show more spine than they have in the past?

In the interest of stiffening those spines, let me remind senators that this isn't just a fiscal issue, it's also a moral issue. Congress has already declared that the budget deficit is serious enough to warrant depriving children of health care; how can it now say that it's worth enlarging the deficit to give Paris Hilton a tax break?



To: American Spirit who wrote (69894)6/5/2006 2:18:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361143
 
Was the 2004 Election Adequately Investigated?

pressthenews.com

<<...1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the US voting machine industry.

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

5. 35% of ES&S is owned by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a long-time friend of the Bush family, was caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush’s vice-presidential candidates.

8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the US and counts almost 60% of all US votes.

9. Diebold’s new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.

11. Diebold is based in Ohio.

12. Diebold employs 5 convicted felons as developers. These are the people who write the voting machine computer code.

13. Diebold’s Senior Vice-President, Jeff Dean, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.

14. Diebold Senior Vice-President Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a “high degree of sophistication” to evade detection over a period of 2 years.

15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold’s claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it! (See the movie at blackboxvoting.org

17. 30% of all US votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.

18. Bush’s Help America Vote Act of 2002 has as its goal to replace all machines with the new electronic touch screen systems with no paper trail.

19. All—not some—but all the voting machine errors detected and reported went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.

20. Major statistical voting oddities (odds on the order of 250 million to 1!)—again always favoring Bush—have been mathematically demonstrated by experts....>>



To: American Spirit who wrote (69894)6/5/2006 2:50:04 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361143
 
Some interesting comments on how our election system has been hijacked...from Huffington Post...

huffingtonpost.com

<<...Hey, Bob Cesca, it's great to see some follow-up on Robert Kennedy Jr.'s epic analysis of what passes for "democracy" in the USA these days. The levity with which you addressed this issue belies the negative impact of our "loss" of democracy.

Now, I don't want to come across as some kind of Leftist wingnut, because I am not -- more like a moderately progressive mildly conservative independent. (Okay, wrap your brain around THAT description, if you dare.)

As far as I am concerned, the 2000 election, examined in retrospect, was stolen by a less-than-divine intervention of seemingly disconnected events. It certainly did not help to have a DLC-led platform, or ticket (Lieberman?), or staff including lawyers that could not successfully argue for a state-wide recount in Florida. Oh, wait -- that never happened.

Apparently, no neo-Con(artist) worth his/her salt would let a mid-term election go by without some monkey busness. The 2002 election saw the 2nd year in a row redistricting of Texas (1st by court order, and 2nd by Delay & his crew), as well as the curiously misnamed "Help America Vote (Our Way) Act. Imagine spending $6 Billion USD on new voting machines without providing national-level machine standards, including testing & certification & vote recount capability. But that is exactly what did happen, and without so much as a whimper from the MSM.

The very same selectively exclusionary voter lists that proved so successful in Florida in 2000 spread to a dozen states in 2004. The march of the neo-Con(artist) vetted voting machine juggernaut continued to spread all across the country. Florida was "promised" to George W. Bush in 2000, and Ohio was "promised" to him in 2004. This was neither an accident, nor was it telepathic presience. But it was the plan, and it worked.

How is it that election day exit polls can be used throughout Western Europe to determine vote outcomes, with the actual ballots used only as confirmation? The quick and easy answer is -- it just works (and quite well). But in the USA, exit polls that vary from actual "counted" ballots by as much as 50%, without any coverage from MSM beyond "Well, we were just wrong, is all." Of course, it was this same "wide variance" in 2000 in Florida that started all this ruckus that set the stage for the Supreme Court decision.

I stopped believing in pure coincidence long ago. It had to do with PNAC and 9-11, with fictional WMD and the Iraq war, with Dubya's "war on terror" and wide open borders & seaports, and so on.

By: David762 on June 04, 2006 at 10:44pm...>>



To: American Spirit who wrote (69894)6/5/2006 3:12:08 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361143
 
Which way to the White House?
____________________________________________________________

Russ Feingold and Mark Warner electrified Democrats in New Hampshire this weekend -- and underscored a choice of divergent paths toward 2008.

By Walter Shapiro

salon.com

Jun. 05, 2006 | Maybe the big political story of the weekend was Russ Feingold and the half dozen standing ovations that the Wisconsin senator earned during his fiery Saturday breakfast speech to the state Democratic convention.

Or perhaps it was the rock-star status awarded to Mark Warner as the toothy former Virginia governor signed autographs and posed for pictures ("The one part of this job I've got down pat is the photo ops") in a light rain outside the party convention before giving a polished, largely autobiographical luncheon address.

However you score it, this weekend was a start-your-engines moment. With Feingold and Warner as the lure, the New Hampshire Democrats held their biggest state convention in 30 years, with 800 party activists flocking to the campus of Saint Anselm College.

More than 17 months before the primary, the 2008 Democratic presidential race has already become a major New Hampshire cottage industry, even with Hillary Clinton doggedly maintaining the comic pretense that she is solely interested in her lopsided Senate reelection campaign. In just the next two weeks, four other Democratic presidential dreamers (Sens. Evan Bayh and Joe Biden, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle) will be popping up in New Hampshire to selflessly aid local candidates.

Hillary and probable non-candidate Al Gore aside, the two Democrats who have had the best run of it in 2006 are unquestionably Feingold and Warner, representing the purist and pragmatic wings of the party. Feingold has made other Democrats look timorous by championing withdrawal from Iraq and a Senate resolution censuring the president. Warner has emerged as the party's latest Southern white knight, the red-state dragon slayer who combines a sterling record as governor with an appealing business background as a mega-rich cellphone entrepreneur who helped found Nextel.

Feingold and Warner have, in effect, become the book ends surrounding a hefty, but potentially unreadable, tome called, "It Takes a Village of Consultants: The Cautious Political Career of Hillary Clinton." As New Hampshire Democratic chairwoman Kathy Sullivan put it, describing Feingold and Warner in advance of the state convention, "They represent two divergent views of the direction that the Democratic Party should go in."

The Iraq war serves as a prime illustration of this yin-yang debate. Feingold in his speech was characteristically direct: "Why are so many Democrats too timid to say what everyone in America knows? It's time to redeploy the troops. It's time to bring the troops out of Iraq. I say bring them home by the end of the year."

Hearing Feingold's words, influential state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, who backed John Edwards in 2004, turned to me and whispered, "That's pretty bold."

Warner's position is a trifle more nuanced and a tad more boring. As you deal with the following extract from Warner's speech, just remember the Little Engine That Could. If you repeat, "I think I can," enough times, you'll get through it.

"The new Iraqi government," Warner said, "has to start really showing the fortitude and its own responsibility to care about its own people -- and that means months, not years, in terms of the ability to step up and disband the militias and try to bring about some level of stability. Now, if we're going to make that happen, the only way it can happen is if we involve the balance of the Iraqi neighbors. Bring them all to the table. Form some level of a Regional Contact Group, so this is no longer simply an American problem."

It is tempting to reduce the political choice to dueling bumper stickers reading: "Bring Our Troops Home for Xmas" and "Form a Regional Contact Group -- Now!"

While Feingold's position on Iraq comes far closer to reflecting the sentiments of the Democratic Party's activist base, the senator will be battling the perception that he cannot win the 2008 general election. This is not of some inside-the-Beltway cabal, but the kind of comments you hear repeatedly from Democrats in places like New Hampshire. As state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, an unsuccessful 2002 congressional candidate, put it, "I'm really interested in Mark Warner. He's a compelling candidate." Then she uttered a small sigh. "I wish the country was ready for Russ Feingold."

For his part, Warner tried to downplay the cleavage in the party, since he is, most assuredly, not running as the 2008 version of Joe Lieberman. Warner has added a few red-meat lines to his still evolving stump speech, mostly notably his call for "an administration that doesn't have an on-and-off switch when it comes to following the law."

Chatting with a small group of reporters after the luncheon, Warner implied that he agrees with Feingold on the dreams, but not the means. "I have tremendous affection for Senator Feingold," Warner said. "He's a very principled voice. I have the same frustrations that he has about Iraq." But a few beats earlier in the group interview, Warner also underscored his belief that change has to come through national "consensus" rather than "repolarizing the country."

Although Feingold had headed off for another speech in Maine long before Warner arrived in New Hampshire, he had anticipated the critique of Democrats who worry that boat rockers are not vote getters. "I just remind everybody," Feingold said in his speech, "Democrats were in the majority in the United States Senate when we voted for the Iraq war and we passed the USA Patriot Act. It's not enough to be just in the majority. You have to stand for something."

In June 2002, I made my first trip to New Hampshire for the 2004 presidential cycle. Observing Feingold and Warner this weekend for the first time in a primary state, I was intrigued to discover that both candidates are more adept at this stage than their counterparts were four years ago.

As the Senate's longtime naysayer, Feingold offers an authenticity in his left-wing political persona that Howard Dean -- the moderate governor of Vermont who went on to oppose the Iraq war -- could never match. Warner boasts the magnetic appeal of a John Edwards and the easy charm of a winner. (Asked about his resemblance to Bobby Kennedy, Warner joked, "It's my horse teeth.") But, unlike Edwards in 2002, Warner brings with him a hefty record of accomplishment as a governor.

In fact, maybe the best headline for the weekend should be, "New Hampshire Democrats Get Along Fine Without Hillary."



To: American Spirit who wrote (69894)6/5/2006 9:27:48 AM
From: zonkie  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361143
 
Be careful busting those bubbles, especially in bubble baths.