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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (663978)7/25/2012 11:45:57 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577071
 
Romney’s Flip-Flops on Gun Control Over the Yearsby Jesse Singal Jul 25, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

As he has on so many other issues, Mitt Romney has executed a major flip-flop on gun rights—and told some mistruths along the way. Jesse Singal takes us through Romney’s gun past.

The man with the NRA hat presented a unique challenge to Mitt Romney. It was April 2007, at a campaign event in Keene, N.H., and Romney, who two months earlier had announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, was being asked about his stance on guns by a gentleman who, based on his baseball cap, was quite passionate about this particular issue.

s governor of Massachusetts, Romney had been able to tack a mostly pro-gun-control course. Not entirely—the NRA had still given him a "B" during his gubernatorial run in 2002, and he did support a few modest NRA-approved initiatives. But overall, Massachusetts voters were rather predictable on guns, and in 2004 Romney signed what the AP would later call “one of the toughest assault weapons laws in the country.” The Bay State had long had sturdy gun-control laws, and its residents liked them.

But in “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire, in the early days of his presidential campaign, Romney was facing his electoral future. If he really wanted to be a viable presidential candidate—let alone a viable presidential candidate for a party blissfully wed to unfettered gun rights—he needed to start singing a different tune. The guy in the NRA cap was just one man, but there were millions more gun owners in Romney’s immediate future, in Iowa and Ohio and Florida and everywhere else. For a candidate whose opponents on the right were hell-bent on hanging the RINO label on him, it was a problem.

And now the guy in the NRA hat was asking Romney about his stance on gun control.

So Romney responded with reassurance. “I've been a hunter pretty much all my life,” he said. This wasn’t true.

With the national debate over gun control back in the news in the wake of the Aurora massacre, Romney’s ideological trajectory on the issue is receiving greater scrutiny.

Of course, President Obama’s views on gun control have “evolved” too. But more so than perhaps any of the many issues on which Romney’s views have changed, Mitt’s position on gun control reveals him at his Mitt-iest—pandering, carefully calibrating, and, in two cases at least, outright lying.

For example, the hunting claim. As his campaign quickly acknowledged, Romney had not been a lifetime hunter. In fact, he had hunted just twice: during a rabbit-hunting trip in Idaho when he was 15, and at a Georgia quail hunt organized during the Republican Governors Association in 2006. (Romney further stated that he had hunted “varmints” on multiple occasions.)

Then, in January 2007, on a conservative podcast called “The Glenn and Helen Show,” Romney said, “I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms.”

“I’m after the NRA’s endorsement,” Romney told an audience in Derry, N.H. “I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will.”

But Romney did not have a gun, as he acknowledged to inquiring reporters two days later. He was, technically, a member of the NRA—he had joined six months prior, paying for a lifetime membership. He admitted it was a calculated move. “I’m after the NRA’s endorsement,” he told an audience in Derry, N.H. “I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.”

As he has on abortion, health-care reform, and a host of other issues, Romney has constantly calibrated his views on guns and gun control to reflect not an internally coherent ideology, but rather what a given questioner wants to hear at a given point. It’s the only way to explain the very casual, easily disproved moments of dishonesty. After all, you don’t just “forget” that you’re not a lifelong hunter, or that you don’t own a gun.

But perhaps the most honest appraisal of Romney’s position on guns comes from the man himself. In the summer of 1994, Romney was running for Senate against both the incumbent Ted Kennedy and an underdog challenger from the right, John Lakian. Lakian’s campaign sent out a bruising letter to tens of thousands of gun owners in Massachusetts, blasting both of his opponents for their pro-gun-control tendencies.

Romney’s response was short and unequivocal.

“He is apparently trying to appeal to small groups because his message is not selling to the overall Republican voting groups,” Romney said.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (663978)7/26/2012 2:20:22 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations  Respond to of 1577071
 
4 Simple Charts That Will Make You Vote For Mitt Romney

Christopher Altchekin Politics, 2012 Elections1 day ago
policymic.com

The 2012 elections present Americans, and millennials, with a clear choice on the future of our country. Do we believe in a government-supported economy, like those of Sweden and France? Or do we believe in minimal government intervention and a balanced budget as the way forward?

Mitt Romney has made it clear where his focus will lie once in office: the economy. Here are the four reasons why millennials should go against expectations and vote for Mitt Romney – not Barack Obama – in this election.

1) Because you want to have the opportunity to get a good job.


Data via St. Louis Fed (Red Line is President Obama's Inauguration)

Since Obama took office in 2008, every single indicator of financial health has gotten worse for millennials. Yes, Obama arrived at the precipice of an unprecedented economic collapse. But what has he done to help millennials get more jobs?

Americans aged 20 to 24 are suffering under Obama’s watch. Unemployment in this demographic has remained above 13% (currently at 13.7%) for the vast majority of Obama’s presidency. We are in the most prolonged period of high youth unemployment since the government began collecting this statistic in 1948. Unemployment for 20-24 year olds has only dipped below 13% once (May 2012) during Obama’s entire term.

Today, only 51% of college graduates since 2006 are employed full-time.

Obama vs. Romney presents millennials with a choice. Obama believes that the government should play a central role in business, and will lead the recovery. In everything from labor unions, to health care, retirement plans, and environmental regulations, Obama supports an active role for government in shaping the decisions businesses make. Romney holds a very different view. He believes businesses succeed when government stays out of the way.

By electing Romney, we have a chance to put a business leader in the Oval Office who will relentlessly focus on improving our economy and lowering unemployment. Romney has made himself very clear – the economy is his number one focus. He’s not a champion of social issues (conservative or liberal) or foreign policy. Romney’s all about doing whatever it takes to get businesses moving again. And millennials can only improve their economic lot when businesses begin thriving again.

Important caveats

* Romney’s tax policies are not millennial friendly. If we expect to close our current deficit, we will need to raise taxes on those who make over $250,000. A small tax raise on this group today will help avoid the inevitable tax spike millennials will face to reduce our $16 trillion national debt.

* Romney still needs to clearly articulate his plan to alleviate youth unemployment.

* Wall Street will not be the engine of job growth in the U.S. Tech, health care, and the service industry will. If Romney becomes only a Wall Street champion, I won't be voting for him.

2) Because you don’t want to be paying off your parents’ debt for your whole life.




Obama has made it clear that he wholeheartedly supports a robust social security system and a strong safety net. Instead of taking a long-term approach to revamping the U.S. economy by promoting businesses that would actually hire young people, Obama has prioritized protecting government benefits: health care and social security. To pay for these benefits, Obama has only proposed raising taxes on the wealthy, which even at a 100% tax rate, will not close the projected deficit. Put simply, under the current plan, millennials will be on the giving end, but most likely never on the receiving end of these programs.

Mitt Romney is not advocating dismantling our social insurance programs. But, he does want the U.S. to take a hard look at our programs and determine how we can shrink them to control costs. Over the past 20 years, social security and Medicare spending has grown at significantly higher rates than GDP, creating an unsustainable gap that can only be solved with higher taxes or budget cuts in other areas.

Annual Change in GDP vs. Medicare Spending vs. Social Security Spending



Romney’s proposal is simple: (1) Raise the retirement age to account for seniors who are living and working later in life; (2) Means test social security to give fewer benefits to those with higher incomes.

Caveat

* There is likely to be a lack of political will to enact Romney’s plans for social security or Medicare. It’s one thing to have a solution to ensure the long-term viability of these programs, but it’s quite another to get it passed through Congress. Americans — millennials included — are likely to oppose measures that delay the disbursement of benefits, or make them contingent upon means testing. George W. Bush's failed attempt at reforming social security due to popular backlash after the 2004 election is still fresh in the minds of many Republicans, who will face opposition if they try to reform America’s social safety net.

3) Because you don’t think labor unions are the future of the American middle class.


Data via UnionStats

In the past 50 years, unions in the U.S. have undergone a dramatic transformation. Dropping from over 30% of the general workforce to barely 12% today, unions have all but disappeared in the private sector. But, public sector unions have grown dramatically, now representing the majority of unionized workers in the U.S.

As a result of public-sector unions’ ability to collectively bargain with their elected officials for contracts, benefits and pension plans have skyrocketed. According to Pew, when retiree health care costs are added to pension obligations, the unfunded liabilities of the states amount to an astounding $1 trillion.

When states are forced to pay government workers generous and ever-growing pensions, that means less money for education, transportation, and infrastructure.

Obama is the unions’ guy. Unions were key to his victory over Hillary Clinton and they’ve been among his strongest supporters. He supports collective bargaining for public sector unions and hasn’t proposed any realistic solutions to ballooning state-level pension plans.

Romney understands the issue and has publicly stated that getting government finances under control will be one of his top priorities.

Caveats

* Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama, did not participate in, or comment heavily on, the Scott Walker recall elections.

* Pew data released since the Wisconsin recall election shows millennials are becoming more supportive of labor unions. This trend is hard to explain, because most millennials do not expect to be taking union jobs.

4) Because you understand that a healthy economy leads to more opportunity and social justice for all, and that social issues are often used as political distractions.


Via Census data from Sep-2010.

Do you believe in marriage equality for the LGBT community? Do you believe in women’s reproductive rights? Do you believe in a fair immigration policy? So do I, and so do the majority of millennials.

Obama is exploiting these wedge issues to woo millennial voters. This is the same strategy orchestrated by Karl Rove to absorb the Christian-right voters into his Republican majority in the 2000’s.

Ultimately, reducing poverty and increasing median household income is the most effective means of achieving a more equal society. The Great Recession has caused poverty rates to skyrocket under Obama to highs not seen since the '60s, which has in turn aggravating social issues.

I believe that growing up as a Mormon gives Romney insight into what it is like to be an under-represented and persecuted minority. Although his statements during the GOP nomination battle reflect socially conservative viewpoints that are largely at odds with millennials’ values, Romney has a history of being moderate on social issues. Remember, in the GOP primary battles, Romney’s fiercest opposition came from the very socially conservative Rick Santorum.

Romney only converted to being anti-abortion in 2004, when he first contemplated his run for president. Being anti-abortion is an absolute necessity for any candidate seeking the GOP nomination. Remember, Obama did not declare support for gay marriage until this year.

Caveat

* Millennials stand solidly with Obama on women’s rights and gay marriage, while Romney stands firmly against Obama. Some of Romney’s viewpoints reflect the necessary political calculus of winning the GOP vote.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (663978)7/26/2012 1:14:11 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1577071
 
Texas Court Makes Landmark Environmental Ruling

By Donna Kohut | July 16, 2012



Photo of Texas State Capital by Stu Seegar via flickr

Everything is bigger in Texas, including environmental headlines. Nearly one year after several young plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in state court, Texas District Judge Gisela Triana ruled that the atmosphere we all share is, indeed, a public trust to be protected by the State.

Represented by Adam Abrams with the Texas Environmental Law Center, three Texas youth initially proposed a rule that would require reductions in statewide carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in an effort to prevent or reduce the effects of climate change. The foundation of their argument was that the atmosphere should be considered part of the public trust, which currently protects bodies of water and wildlife. The public trust doctrine has been respected throughout history, dating back to the Roman Empire. Until recently, it has not been applied to protect the air or atmosphere.

The initial lawsuit from 2011 is part of a legal action in 49 states and the District of Columbia against the federal government on behalf of youth who are concerned that, left unchecked, current carbon emissions will lead to catastrophic climate change. Deeply concerned for their futures, these youth are determined to hold state and federal governments responsible for protecting the public welfare that is connected to the health of the planet.

Judge Triana states in her written decision: “The Court will find that the Commission’s conclusion, that the public trust doctrine is exclusively limited to the conservation of water, is legally invalid. The doctrine includes all natural resources of the State.” Even more astonishing is that this decision came down only weeks after D.C.’s Court of Appeals ruled against the State of Texas, upholding the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The court affirmed the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which concludes that greenhouse gases cause global climate change, which in turn, threatens human health and survival.

These are promising wins for the movement. We must continue to pressure courts that side with science and support the politicians who dare speak the words “climate change”. As Adam Abrams, said, “For the benefit of a healthy planet and for future generations, the finger pointing and pushing of political agendas needs to give way to innovative solutions and effective government action that address the threats we all face from climate change. Simply, it’s time for our leaders to protect the public trust.”