Print

[Frenchfry]

"Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, nearing completion of a prison sentence for bribery and tax evasion, has asked the judge who sentenced him to restore his right to carry weapons so he can enter shooting contests and hunt bears and cougars after he is released...".

Imprisoned Ex-Rep. Denied Gun Because Of Law He Helped Pass

[Frenchfry]

Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman on Monday slammed President Barack Obama’s remark that the private sector is “doing fine,” calling it “unfortunate” and adding that the president “screwed up the line.”

“That was an unfortunate line. The president bungled the line. The truth is, the private sector is doing better than the public sector, which is not well enough,” said Krugman on CBS’s “This Morning.”

Last Friday, Obama had said “the private sector is doing fine” during a press conference. Within hours, Obama had backtracked, telling the press “it is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine.

The New York Times columnist said the real story of the recession is that normal public-sector job growth would have created nearly 1½ million jobs.

“By this point in Obama’s presidency, if we had normal sector job growth, we’d have 800,000 more people: firefighters, schoolteachers, police officers. Instead, we’ve got 600,000 fewer,” explained Krugman. “So right there, it’s like 1.4 million jobs that we should have had in the public sector.”

“That’s what he was trying to get at and of course, he screwed up the line,” Krugman added.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain on Monday laughed about President Barack Obama’s comment last week that “the private sector is doing fine,” saying the incident was reflective of the president’s overall “philosophy.”

At a press conference about the economy on Friday, Obama told reporters that he believes the private sector is “doing fine” — remarks that quickly drew wide criticism from Republicans. As a presidential candidate, McCain had made a similar gaffe about the economy when he said that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

Joking that Obama’s comments took him down “a little trip down memory lane,” McCain said on “Fox & Friends” Monday that the remarks were symbolic of Obama’s general view of the economy.

“I’d like to go down Central Avenue in Phoenix with him and show him these small-business owners and these closed businesses and store fronts and all of the impact this recession has had on the economy of the private sector,” the Arizona Republican said. “It shows the philosophy of the president of the United States. He believes that having state, federal and local governments hire more people that that’s the answer to the way out.”

The Romney surrogate added, “Mitt Romney believes that business creates jobs.”

Asked how tough it might be for Obama to shake off the comments — which the president tried to clarify later on Friday by saying “it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine” — McCain suggested that media bias would help the president.

“It all depends on the media coverage. I would argue that a lot of the media is not too unfriendly to the president,” he said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77270.html

Obama Private Sector 'Gaffe' - The Real Story

President Obama has taken a lot of criticism since saying the private sector is "doing fine", but does he deserve it?

[Frenchfry]

Who should you vote for in 2012? President Obama, Mitt Romney, Rocky Anderson, or someone else? Does it matter if a Republican or Democrat wins? Does a third party candidate stand a chance?

2012: Who Should You Vote For?



http://www.voterocky.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson


Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.  --Frederick Douglass
Working together to solve America’s problems:

At no time in the last century have so few held so much of our nation's wealth, nor have our children faced less prosperity than their forebears.

The two-party system has failed us.

The moment has come for American citizens to come together for our mutual benefit to solve the problems that lie before us.

The Justice Party issues a clarion call to join our community of concerned Americans demanding social, economic, and environmental justice for all, not just for the wealthiest Americans and their corporations.
Getting the corrupting influence of money out of politics

corporate-funding-button.pngWe seek to return political power to the people through fair and transparent elections, campaign finance reform, proportional representation, and Constitutional amendment.

The Justice Party is a grassroots, broad-based, real political alternative to the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties. We invite you to help build America’s just future.
"Have you had enough?" asks Justice Party presidential candidate
Rocky Anderson.

Will you support the formation of a new party that will commit to:

Economic Justice:

    Implement major domestic green jobs and infrastructure programs
    Re-establish and make viable workers’ right to organize
    Create a fair, democratic, and transparent financial sector that serves the needs of start-ups, small business and consumers
    End incentives for U.S. companies to send jobs overseas
    Enact a financial transaction tax that will curb reckless speculation and provide revenue for job creation, job training and education
    End the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
    Compassionate and rational immigration reform
    End to subsidies for oil and gas companies
    Free education through four years of college or equivalent as a right
    Protect public investments by opposing and reversing the privatization of public assets

Environmental Justice:

    Enforce employee and environmental safeguards in trade agreements
    Ban the Canada-to-Mexico tar sands pipeline and mountain top removal
    Enhance air and water quality protections by strengthening the EPA
    Take aggressive action and leadership on the climate crisis and the environment

Social and Civic Justice:

    Affordable universal health care through Improved Medicare for All
    An end to the wars; reduce the military budget and redirect money to domestic economy
    Marriage equality
    End race and gender discrimination
    Treat substance abuse within a public health framework rather than as a criminal matter
    Repeal the PATRIOT Act
    Abolish corporate personhood and implement campaign finance reform to end the corrupting influence of money in politics
    Prosecute the illegal conduct that led to the economic melt-down
http://www.justicepartyusa.net/

[Frenchfry]

"Professor Roberto Unger, an author and professor who taught the President courses in "reinventing democracy" during his time in Harvard, has become disillusioned with Obama. Unger posted a video to YouTube, entitled "Beyond Obama" where he urges people to vote against the President. In that video, Unger attacks the Democratic party, the President, the tax code and the United States economy...".

'Don't Vote For Obama' - President's Harvard Professor

[Frenchfry]

In this Web exclusive, Michael Lind, policy director of New America's Economic Growth Program and author of "Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States," tells "Viewpoint" host Eliot Spitzer how the competing visions of Thomas Jefferson (small government) and Alexander Hamilton (big government) are reflected in the modern political climate.

Extra: The small vs. big government debate as a 'PR problem'

[Frenchfry]

Comparing Obama vs. GOP approaches to extending Bush Tax Cuts

Citizens for Tax Justice
New analysis finds GOP Approach to Bush Tax Cuts would give richest one percent of Amer­icans $50,660 per year more and give poorest 20 percent $150 less on average than Obama’s approach



Wash­ington, DC – Middle-income and low-income Amer­icans would pay somewhat more in taxes under the Congres­sional Repub­licans’ approach to extending the Bush tax cuts than they would under Pres­ident Obama’s approach, while high-income Amer­icans would pay far less under the Repub­lican approach, according to a new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).

Under the President’s approach, in 2013, the poorest 20 percent of Amer­icans would receive an average tax cut of $270 while the richest one percent would get an average tax cut of $20,130. Under the Congres­sional Repub­licans’ approach, the poorest 20 percent of Amer­icans would receive an average tax cut of $120 while the richest one percent would receive an average cut of $70,790.

Pres­ident Obama’s proposal to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, would result in 1.9 percent of Amer­icans losing some portion of the Bush income tax cuts. In 22 states, less than 1.5 percent of resi­dents would lose some portion of their income tax cuts under the President’s proposal.

Read the fact sheet.



The Bush tax cuts extension outlined by the Pres­ident would cost one trillion dollars less over 10 years than would making all the Bush tax cuts permanent, as the GOP proposes.

“Both Pres­ident Obama and Congres­sional Repub­licans have proposed to extend far too many of these unaf­fordable tax cuts,” said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. “But if we have to choose between the Congres­sional Repub­licans’ and Pres­ident Obama’s approach, the President’s proposal is fairer and more responsible.”

The national and state reports are all available at: www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts2012.php.

The term “Bush tax cuts” refers to income tax cuts and estate tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and extended several times since then. In 2009, Pres­ident Obama expanded some parts of these tax cuts that benefit low income and working families. In December of 2010, the Pres­ident and Congress agreed to extend all of these tax cuts through the end of 2012.

Repub­licans in Congress have indi­cated that they would extend all of the tax cuts first enacted in 2001 and 2003, but not the 2009 expan­sions for lower income families. Pres­ident Obama wants to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts only for the first $250,000 a married couple makes annually, or the first $200,000 a single person makes. Obama also wants to extend the 2009 expansions.

The findings from CTJ and ITEP also show:

    Of the tax cuts going to Amer­icans, under Obama’s approach, three percent would go to the poorest 20 percent of Amer­icans, 9.9 percent would go to the middle 20 percent and 11.4 percent would go to the richest one percent.

    Of the tax cuts going to Amer­icans, under the Congres­sional Repub­licans’ approach, one percent would go to the poorest 20 percent of Amer­icans, 7.4 percent would go to the middle 20 percent of Amer­icans and 31.8 percent would go to the richest one percent of Americans.

CTJ and ITEP are also releasing state-specific versions of this report showing the specific distri­b­ution of the benefits, and amounts of tax cuts, from each approach in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. All the reports are at www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts2012.php.

The report also addresses the economic effects of tax cuts versus direct government spending and cites Moody Analytics research concluding that government spending is more stim­u­lative by a factor of five or more than tax cuts.

Citizens for Tax Justice
Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is a 501 ©(4) public interest research and advocacy orga­ni­zation focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ’s mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the devel­opment of tax laws. Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corpo­ra­tions and the wealthy, CTJ fights for:

— Fair taxes for middle and low-income families
— Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share
— Closing corporate tax loop­holes
— Adequately funding important government services
— Reducing the federal debt
— Taxation that mini­mizes distortion of economic markets
http://galesburgplanet.com/posts/15652

[Frenchfry]

History from 2008


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

[Frenchfry]

Michigan Democrat accused of not being 'black' enough by other Democrats
http://www.examiner.com/article/michigan-democrat-accused-of-not-being-black-enough-by-other-democrats

[Frenchfry]

Cash pouring in for Michigan's congressional incumbents
 Federal data show Michigan's congressional incumbents are dominating their challengers in raising campaign cash, a nonpartisan group said Monday.

An analysis by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonprofit organization that conducts research on money in state politics, shows members of Congress from the state have brought in $18.7 million of the $22.7 million raised by candidates running in the Aug. 7 primary.

The network is relying on second-quarter campaign finance reports — through June 30 — filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The top fundraisers among Michigan incumbents this election cycle are Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Midland, who has raised $3.5 million, and Commerce and Energy Chairman Fred Upton of St. Joseph, whose campaign has brought in $3.1 million.

One incumbent who is not enjoying a distinct fundraising advantage is freshman Republican Rep. Dan Benishek of Crystal Falls, who faces a potential general election rematch with former Democratic state Rep. Gary McDowell.
More here:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120716/POLITICS01/207160365/1361/Cash-pouring-in-for-Michigan-s-congressional-incumbents

[Frenchfry]

Report: Incumbents dominate in Michigan fundraising for U.S. House
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/07/michigan_congress_fundraising.html

[Frenchfry]

House Won't Take Up Health Exchange
House Speaker Jase Bolger's spokesman, Ari Adler, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the Republican caucus remains divided and won't be ready to act on the health insurance exchange when lawmakers return Wednesday after a five-week break.
http://www.monroenews.com/news/2012/jul/17/house-wont-take-health-exchange/

[Frenchfry]

In Its First Action, Consumer Bureau Takes Aim at Capital One

Capital One, one of the nation’s biggest banks, will reimburse $150 million to more than two million customers for selling them credit card products they could not use or did not want, as the nation’s new consumer watchdog leveled its first enforcement action against the financial industry.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Wednesday hit Capital One with findings that a vendor working for the bank had pressured and deceived card holders into buying products presented as a way to protect them from identity theft and hardships like unemployment or disability.

The regulatory actions, totaling $210 million including fines to authorities, take aim at one of the financial industry’s growing profit centers and increasingly controversial practices. Several other banks, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and HSBC, were sued in June by the Hawaii attorney general, accused of improperly selling similar so-called add-on products, which consumer advocates typically regard as costly and ineffective.

More here:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/consumer-watchdog-fines-capital-one-for-deceptive-credit-card-practices/

[Frenchfry]

Detroit cuts union pay without bargaining; backlash possible
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-detroit-cuts-union-pay-without-bargaining-prompts-possible-backlash-20120719,0,313279.story

[Frenchfry]

Bank contractors illegally break into homes across the US

[Frenchfry]

 Need to Know: Michigan's 11th District Congressional Race

After Thaddeus McCotter decided to leave office early, voters are faced with a confusing voting season. Here's some basic info to help you sort it all out.

http://birmingham.patch.com/articles/need-to-know-michigans-11th-district-congressional-race