One Problem Facing all Governments--Corruption!

The United States needs a WAR, not in the Middle East over control of oil or a War on Drugs to show who is tough on crime, but a real war on political corruption.

Political ethics involving judgements, public policy, political actions, and favoritism abound just when we should be holding public officials to higher standards than are necessary in private life.  Private decisions are expected to reap rewards in the form of more business, mutual cooperation. They should be afforded the right to privacy. Ordinary citizens can make those decisions without being held to the same accountability as public officials who must be concerned with conflicts of interest. The public has the right to know about the total decision making process. 

Sweetheart public contracts, appointments. hiring of government workers, extended pay and personal benefits to campaign supporters and their family members on public payrolls  occur on a daily basis. Crony politics" such as workers doing "favors" as instructed by their employer is often thought of as soft corruption" as opposed to "hard corruption."  Such practices, while not new, should not be overlooked.

What is new is the blame game attributing corruption to the Supreme Court's declaration in the Citizens United case. Sorry, but corruption and political favoritism existed long before corporations became people, at least in the Court's collective mind.

It has long been a practice of consolidation of power through favoritism, it is the use of that power attained through the handout of political plums or citizen involvement that matters.

Let's face it: Reformist movements are part of the process to end corruption. The women's temperance movement to promote and enact prohibition against alcohol was propagated on a religious basis, but would have gone nowhere were it not supported by factory owners who had massive absenteeism on Mondays.

"Blue Monday" was recognized as the name given to the third Monday of January reflecting the most depressing day of the year. Many of employers dreaded Mondays when workers were too hung-over to show up or be productive at work. The answer was to get a reform movement going.

Watch this election cycle as the corruption undergoes massive exposure. Flashlights used where floodlights are needed cause corruption to go largely unpunished.  Corruption steals from the poor all around the world.  Riots in massively populated areas puts fear in the hearts of government leaders in China and Russia. Protest marches in the streets, people holed up in masses in public parks, and yes, the "Arab Spring" and the revolutionary wave of  demonstrations from Northern Africa to the Middle East have fueled world interest.

Some leaders in the Arab world were deposed, removed from office and put on trial. As civil uprisings and major protests proliferate around the world, Civil war rages in Muslim countries such as Syria and Yemen. 

Remember back just a few years when the corrupt undemocratic regime of Ferdinand Marcos, the president of the Philippines caught our attention.  It was not his wife, Imelda Marcos and her collection of some three thousand pairs of shoes that brought down his government.  It was the excess public corruption.

One more little reminder of political corruption that forced the only resignation of a U. S. President, namely, Watergate.  The "fighters" of political corruption in the United States will be out in force in the 2016 elections as the political aspirants strive to capture the public anger.

My next attempt at my brand of Liberal and Progressive thought will expose some quacks, charlatans, just plain fakers, hoaxers and con artists using the "right" rhetoric, but not walking the walk!

Republicans, file this under Family Values

Note:  Since this was written Loretta Lynch has be confirmed and sworn in as Attorney General.

The Republican-led Senate held back confirmation of Loretta Lynch's as Attorney General in response to a disagreement with Democrats over a human trafficking bill.

Who could oppose a bill to combat human trafficking?  Really No One.   Then what is the problem?

The Republican Leadership refuses to let the human trafficking bill pass unless it has language that will impose forced birth on teenage sex slaves. They are refusing to hold a confirmation vote on Loretta Lynch unless they can keep the provision that will impose forced birth on teenage sex slaves. And they are so desperate that they have scheduled five cloture votes that they know will fail in an attempt to ram through the language that will impose forced birth on teenage sex slaves.

Now, it's true that there's a number of the conservative movement that overtly cheers forced birth for teenage sex slaves, but didn't Sen. McConnell say that the new Republican majority in the Senate would be a force for reason and collaboration? Well, it seems instead that Senate Republicans are giving their extremist colleagues in the House a run for their money. With a special emphasis on making sure that kids who are forced into prostitution bear the offspring of the men who raped them.

Existing law has included annual restrictions on taxpayer spending for abortion for decades.   In the proposed bill a victims' fund is envisioned that would be made up of fees paid by criminals.  The Democrats say applying restrictions on abortion spending to that victims' fund money is a restriction they can't accept.  A very simple way of stating the Republican position, young girls held as sex slaves, raped and forced into prostitution who become pregnant can not have an abortion, period.  It doesn't make any difference who pays for it, even money from the criminals who lead to their pregnancies.

So much for "welfare queens" having babies to grab taxpayer money, so much for two parent families.  You know, family values.  Who would have guessed the Republicans in Congress would be leading the effort for kidnapped, young girls being forced to have children of their rapist captors.

The BIG LIE, Republican Congressional Budgets

          It is your DUTY!   VOTE
This is an "edited" article by Stephen Ohlemacher 
to be released March 23, 2015 by Associated Press 
under the Title: "Fact Check".

The new House and Senate Republican budgets make a big boast: They both balance the federal budget within 10 years, without raising taxes.

The Republican's proposals would leave a $90 BILLION shortage each year for the next 10 years!

Their own numbers, however, say millions of American families and businesses would have to pay more in taxes to make the math work — about $900 billion more over the next decade.

Both the Republican Senate and Republican House budgets claim big savings by repealing President Barack Obama's health law. But at the same time, they rely on more than $1 trillion in tax revenue from the health law that they would supposedly repeal.

The two Republican nonbinding political documents that lack details, especially when it comes to taxes.  It  provides important insight into how majority Republicans in Congress would tackle the federal government's finances.  

THE CLAIM: "First and foremost, we balance the federal budget in less than 10 years by reducing spending by $5.5 trillion — without accounting gimmicks or higher taxes." —Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a published opinion article.

"Republicans have put forward a responsible plan that balances the budget in 10 years with no new tax hikes, that protects our most vulnerable citizens, it strengthens our national defense, and it improves economic growth and opportunity for hardworking families." —Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

THE FACTS: Both Republican budgets say they will generate $41.67 trillion in revenue over the next decade. That is very close to the $41.75 trillion that would be generated under current law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

<The LIE exposed not by President Obama's Executive Department's fiscal estimates, but the Congressional Budget Office's own nonpartisan fiscal staff.>

Current law assumes that more than 50 temporary tax breaks that expired at the start of the year will not be renewed. They include tax breaks for businesses big and small, as well as provisions that benefit commuters, teachers and struggling homeowners.

All together, the tax breaks add up to $898 billion over the next decade, according to CBO.

Do congressional Republicans really want to eliminate $898 billion in tax breaks?

No!   NOT TO DATE!

Most Republicans in Congress have voted numerous times to temporarily extend them. And over the past year, the Republican-controlled House has voted to make some of the more popular ones permanent.

Then why don't the Republican budget resolutions reflect the costs of providing those tax breaks?

<How many times have we heard this before?>

Republican budget writers assert that they can fill the revenue gap by simplifying the tax code and making it more competitive.

Both GOP plans call for overhauling the taxes paid by individuals and businesses. Without providing many details, they count on that overhaul to spark more economic growth, which would generate additional tax revenue.

<What cutting taxes to create more taxes?   When has that ever worked?>

"Our budget calls for comprehensive tax reform that would include lower rates for individuals and families as well as large corporations and small businesses who often file their tax returns through the individual side of the tax code," says the House plan. "Along with lower rates, we propose broadening the tax base by closing special-interest loopholes that distort economic activity."

The plan doesn't specify which "loopholes" would be closed. That would be left to the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee to figure out later.

<Ground Hog's Day all over?>

The Senate plan creates a reserve fund that could be used to help pay for a tax overhaul or to "extend certain expiring tax-relief provisions." But the budget resolution doesn't allocate any money to the fund.

<Call it the Santa Claus Fund or the Tooth Fairy under your pillow fund.>

Some policymakers in Washington say that letting temporary tax cuts expire isn't the same as increasing taxes. But congressional Republicans don't make that argument, especially about tax breaks that have been around for years and even decades.

To drive home the point, when Congress voted in December to extend the temporary tax breaks through the end of the year, the title of the legislation was the "Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014."

After the November Elections, the December extending of temporary tax breaks was called, the "Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014" and the Fox said to Little Red Riding Hood, "All the better to eat you with my dear."

            DUTY CALLS--VOTE!

Government by and for the People, next Joke

This what we voted for, really? 

It is long past time for a serious discussion. Discussion requires listening, inequitable tax codes, regressive sales and use taxes to allow special exemptions and corporate tax reductions has been revealed and no one was listening. Lawmakers don't lack courage, they have plenty of courage when it comes to special interests rewards.

 They have plenty of opportunity to reverse or stop the fiscal wreckage or correct legislative boondoggles and excesses . They enact legislation that takes effect four-six-eight years down the line, the results won't show immediately and by the time it does they will be term-limited out with racy new positions given by those whose favor they curried with legislative special treatments.

Take a roll call of past legislators and government political appointees and check out what they are doing today, with and for who?   It is so difficult to believe, the voters have been stomped on, beat up, totally violated and yet they vote for the sane public molesters time and time again.

In 1998 the voters passed Arizona Proposition 200, also known as the Clean Elections Act. Many of the people chosen by the voters have fought and tried to destroy the Act every since. Turning to this week the Senate rejected a bill to ask the voters to end the Clean Elections Act, then two Republican Senators changed their votes and on reconsideration the measure asking voters to repeal the public campaign funding system was passed and will go the 2016 ballot.

Was there anything wrong with the Act? Couldn't it be amended and fixed? Why if it has been working since 1998 have the political powers finally mustered enough strength to destroy it, who or what is behind it, certainly not the voters who placed it into law?

Another case of voter abuse, is the voter mandate on school finance adopted by the voters in 2000. When the Legislature decided it didn't want to follow the voters requirements, they just ignored them. The Courts have ordered the State to comply with the voters adopted measure.

What has happened? The Governor and the Legislature just spit in the voters eye and rather than make up the voter approved funds for schools, more financial cuts and demands without money for schools to do more. Yes, with less!

In 2000 the voters in Arizona were fed up with the results of how the Legislature was drawing the voting district lines and gathered signatures to put Proposition 106 on the ballot delegating the power to draw congressional and legislative district boundaries to an Independent Redistricting Commission. The voters decided they wanted an independent commission to complete the redrawing of lines every ten years after the census was completed by the Federal Government.

Behold the voters spoke again, and what has the Legislature done every since?

Fought tooth and nail to get back to their old ways of gerrymandering districts to favor their political needs and retain political power. Once again, right up to today, the choice of the people has been rejected to the point taxpayer dollars are being spent to challenge the decision of the voters in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The elected representatives of the people want to overturn another initiative sponsored by the people and get back their selfish, self-serving ways. Another case of slapping the people governed in the face.

Some how the people keep giving the keys to the government in Arizona to the elected people that pick and choose what voter decisions they like and will accept. Long overdue time for discussion? In Arizona we have what the dark money has bought, what we pay for with our tax dollars and so far what we as voters are allow to have by the political powers in Phoenix.

GOP won't give up tearing down Social Security & Medicare

The News is GOOD

After rising for a decade, the number of Americans experiencing 

financial distress from their medical bills has started to decline, 

a new survey has found.      The result provides new evidence 

that the Affordable Care Act, by providing uninsured people 

with health insurance, is also improving their financial security, 

a major goal of the law.

Michael Hiltzik

LOS ANGELES TIMES-January 19, 2015michael.hiltzik​@latimes.com

The disability program is facing a fiscal crisis that could force a cutback in crisis that could force a cutback in disability payments of about 20% starting next year; Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) and other Republicans have signaled that they won't accept the customary remedy for similar situations, which involves reallocating some payroll tax revenue from the old-age fund to cover disability's near-term shortfall. Instead, they're demanding a full-scale fiscal rebalancing of Social Security, which in practice means benefit cuts for everyone -- disabled, retirees and their families.

A large proportion of Paul's own constituents would be harmed by his approach. In 2013, his home state of Kentucky had the fourth-highest disability rate in the country -- more than 225,000 residents, or 8.2% of the population -- fostered in part by low educational attainment and lack of gainful employment opportunities. (What has Paul done to alleviate those conditions?)

The most cynical aspect of this attack is  that it comes from some lawmakers who were helped by Social Security in their own lives. The roster includes Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who received Social Security benefits during his college years, after his father's untimely death, and now thinks that the nation can't afford to keep paying them as currently scheduled.

Another is Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), the sponsor of the House rules change, whose father died when he was 2 and then was raised by a single mother on Social Security and veterans benefits. Now he talks about Social Security going "bankrupt," which is flatly incorrect, and promotes a measure aimed at cutting benefits for all. This is known as climbing the ladder and pulling it up behind you. If Reed, Ryan and Paul get their way, the only option left to the rest of us will be to hold tight. ###

EARNED BENEFITS PROGRAM-Social Security

A wedge is attempting to be built pitting older generations against younger ones and trying to convince our grandkids to settle for less than what they deserve, which is a secure retirement that they earn through their work.

Every effort to curtail the onward existence of Social Security comes with the pitch to younger people, "it won't be there when you are ready to retire". 

The question, if so many people recognize and understand that by not increasing the minimum wage (most propose to $10.10 an hour) it is draining state and federal poverty programs keeping full time workers incomes so low they can't even support themselves let alone a child or a family, why is the Republican opposition so furious?  Do the Republicans really want people on "the dole"? 

Originally "the dole" was considered a government program for the unemployed, today the Republicans think any government program directed to combat poverty levels and help feed poor people such as food stamps or school free lunch programs are being wasted on people lacking initiative and just plain lazy "folk".

Of course government corporate assistance, special tax breaks, subsidies, farm programs for corporate farms are not the dole!  Money directed to private businesses and corporate, even foreign corporations, represented by millions of dollars paid to unregulated lobbyists and front groups is not government welfare.

So what does the minimum wage have to do with Social Security and the Republican opposition?  The GOP dependence on the financial favors of a few huge campaign money machines and shadow "unconnected not for profit advocate groups" may have a little bit to do with their opposition.  How many elections would the GOP win without the dark money blasting and distorting Democrat policies and values? 

Time after time every poll and expression of public opinion supports and favors Democrat ideals and positions of issues.  Yet the confusion, and constant negative rhetoric has taken a toll on election results as in Statehouses, State Legislatures and the Halls of Congress itself. 

Changes advocated for Social Security, Medicare and opposition to lifting the minimum was all have to do with profits, the amount of money the fat cats get to keep.  Payroll taxes in the percentage of paid wages are lower with lower minimum wages, increase the minimum wage more taxes would be collected for the Social Security Trust Fund for Medicare. 

It's the payroll taxes!  Think about it, higher pay, less people on the government dole, cut spending on government assistance programs, more chance to balance the federal budget, bring down the deficit, more money for the expanding Medicare rolls,  and protecting the earned benefits of Social Security.

Voucher out Medicare, snake oil solutions for future Social Security benefits and maintaining high corporate profits all the while pointing, yes, giving the finger to the working poor!  No solution to immigration without allowing low wage guest workers, no path to citizenship for millions living under the cover of darkness, and absolutely blocking every effort to empower people's the right to vote.

Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)

On the other hand, less than a third (31 percent) of Americans 65 and older favor the law. A lot of their opposition may be rooted in the misconception that Obamacare “cut” Medicare. And, of course, there’s the fact that people in the 65+ age group have access to Medicare and don’t face many of the problems the law was designed to solve - like being turned away by insurers because of pre-existing health conditions or paying sky-high premiums because of age.  {I got mine attitude}

Retirees, disorganized, not equipped for legal battles are being attacked.

• The Alliance for Retired Americans
 

Friday, December 19, 2014

<Mostly members are retired union members from various labor organizations who have joined together under one alliance.  This a direct reprint which I will add comments.>

****

Paul Ryan’s Way of Cutting Medicare to Reemerge in New Congress

The next Republican budget will look a lot like those written by exiting House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the incoming House Budget Committee Chairman said last Friday. That would mean eliminating deficits in 10 years by calling again for massive cuts to the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who takes the reins of the U.S. House budget panel in January, told reporters he will “build on” Ryan's proposals by devising ways to put more federal benefits programs under the control of states. Ryan will take over as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Price said a Republican-controlled Congress can now advance policies pioneered by Ryan, including his controversial Medicare plans. Those plans would cut Medicare by limiting beneficiaries to a set amount of money every year to buy private health care insurance. Known as "premium support," the program would mark a dramatic shift from the current Medicare system, under which the federal government helps pay for all medical services that an individual uses.

<In short, here is a voucher for health insurance, now go negotiate a health plan for yourself.>

“‘Premium support’ is vouchers and would gut Medicare and shift costs to seniors,” said Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance. “It is another way of saying, ‘Here’s a nickel, you’re on your own for the rest of your health care costs.’” More from Reuters at http://tinyurl.com/nuuhany.

<Alliance for Retired Americans sponsors "Letters to the Editor" and awards a special pen to members who get published and forward their information to the organization.>

Budget or another Topic on Your Mind? Write a Letter to the Editor

Letters to the editor are a terrific way to get our message out.

===================================================

Huffington Post December 15, 2014

When the Senate approved the omnibus spending bill to prevent the government from shutting down, it also delivered a blow to some retirees who collect pensions. In a little-discussed provision of the bill, certain multi-employer pension plans were given the go-ahead to reduce pension checks to current recipients by up to 60 percent. 

<Watch this, also Koch Industries major employers are looking for ways to limit or reduce employee pension benefits.>

===================================================

Huffington Post December 19, 2014

The United Steelworkers union negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements stipulating that retired employees "will receive a full company contribution towards the cost of [health] benefits." The union believed the benefits were guaranteed for life. The company contends it could take away these benefits whenever it chose--which it did in 2007.

The retirees challenged that action. The retirees won in the lower courts, and now their case is pending before the Supreme Court.

<Watch this, many retirees whose benefit includes company paid health benefits, may not be guaranteed for life as they thought.>

====================================================

The Speech That Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next President of the United States

The Warren for President Movement already has a campaign slogan:

"The Best Candidate Money Can't Buy!"

Democrats don't like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don't like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts

And yet here we are, five years after Dodd-Frank with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for the middle class, do nothing for community banks, do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again...So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi[group]. I agree with you Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces!

If this Congress is going to open up Dodd-Frank in the months ahead, then let's open it up
to get tougher, not to create more bailout opportunities. If we're going to open up Dodd-Frank, let's open it up so that once and for all we end too big to fail and I mean really end it, not just say that we did.  Instead of passing laws that create new bailout opportunities for too big to fail banks, let's pass...something...that would help break up these giant banks.

A century ago Teddy Roosevelt was America's Trust-Buster. He went after the giant trusts
and monopolies in this country, and a lot of people talk about how those trust deserved to be broken up because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatens the very foundations up our democratic system.

And now we're watching as Congress passes yet another provision that was written by lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of this country. And its attached to a bill that needs to pass or else we entire federal government will grind to a halt.

Think about that kind of power. If a financial institution has become so big and so powerful
that it can hold the entire country hostage. That alone is reason enough to break them up.

Enough is enough.  Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism that we have seen in the executive branch. Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but everybody will come to regret. Enough is enough,  Washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists.

But what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citigroup bet big on derivatives and lost? What about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail out Citi just 6 years ago?  We were sent here to fight for those families. It is time, it is past time, for Washington to start working for them!  The conventional wisdom is that to win white working and middle class voters, politicians need to move towards the center, meaning towards a more corporate approach. But in a world of growing inequality, stagnating wages, and a fading belief that with hard work your children can have a better life than you had, that may no longer be true.         Senator Elizabeth Warren   United States Senate  December 12, 2014

Senator Elizabeth Warren correctly points out the political system in the United States has become heavily weighted down for the wealthy and many Democrats have forgotten our goal is to protect working families against these forces of massive money campaigns.

If there is one thing that people understand, either they have money or someone else does and that leaves them out of the main stream of American Life.  How much longer will the poor continue to pay the penalty?

Miles Mogulescu Entertainment attorney, writer and political activist 
December 13, 2014  Huff Post Politics Writes
Elizabeth Warren represents a new politics in which, by challenging the power of the oligarchy, she has the potential of reclaiming the white working class for Democrats and uniting them with the coalition of professionals, single women, gays and minorities who elected Obama. She is the first major national politician in decades who is willing to openly challenge the power of the Wall Street oligarchy, in the manner of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who declared, "They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."

With the increasingly dominant power of big money in politics, could Warren defeat Clinton, Inc. and then go on to defeat what is likely to be the near unanimous support of the Wall Street and corporate elite for her Republican opponent? It's hard to say. But the nation is in too much trouble to settle for a Democratic or Republican candidate of the corporatist status quo. If there's any hope, it's that once in a while the power of organized people can defeat the power of organized money. Elizabeth Warren represents that hope and it's the only thing worth hoping for.                                                                                                                                 

It transformed the conventional wisdom about American politics that the main divide is between left, right, and center, when it is really between pro-corporate and anti-corporate. Her declaration that neither Democrats nor Republicans (meaning the voters, not the Washington politicians) don't like bank bailouts rings loud and true. Tea party supporters don't like bailouts and crony capitalism any more that progressives do.