Sunday, October 02, 2011

I'm going to take the previous story one step further.

My personal experience with this mess is that my mother was believing everything that came as emails.  She has lived a comfortable life and my father was always there to protect her.  If she wanted to be gullible then she could be as gullible as she wanted to be until the gullibility reached dear old dad and 'he would handle it.'  He never minded and loved that side of her.

I guess the proper expression regarding Mom, "She lived a protected life."  And basically she did.  I remember she said she was going to divorce Dad once, but, it was because he hadn't mowed the lawn in more than a week.

She is a widow now.  She has been simple and devout all her life.  She prays the rosary daily and attends mass nearly as often.  She volunteers on a regular basis and leads a senior group organized by the Priests of her parish.  She is a nice lady.  Now.  She no longer has the man in her life that protects her.  She is a worry to myself and my sister.  We don't want her hurt and while these emails are mostly entertainment they can be very dangerous if wrongly used.  It also serves a purpose to keep her vulnerable.  I have been setting up good habits for her and I hate it, but, she now does things like sets the house alarm every night and takes it off in the morning.  All that was my Father's role in her life.  

This stuff that circulates among vulnerable people based in untruths and packed full of emotional composition is sad.  It is to me.  I just believe Mom doesn't need all this faux compassion in her life and I think it 'sets her up' to be vulnerable.  Oh, well.

This is the latest "SERIAL E-MAIL" moronity from the Right Wing.

I can't believe the junk that circulates through emails for political purpose.  This is only one of them.  They are getting to be 'a thing' on Facebook.

The reason Elected Federal Employees are exempt from The Affordable Care Act is because they are already covered by health care, the same as any other employee of the federal government, and there is a CONFLICT of interest for elected officials that voted for it IF they were to receive benefits from the bill.

Hello?  Anyone out there?

Photo by Jo-Anne Roche Clough, a retired teacher that used to teach at  (click here), a private christian university in Phoenix, Arizona.  Why does that sound right?

These emails are pathetic.  They attempt to exploit the weakest understanding of life and emotional vulnerability.  

This is another one that was posted on Facebook by Catherine Kincaid-Regimbal.  It says nothing.  It is a fictitious story the best I can tell, but, it is treated and read by the elderly as if a promise of life after Christianity.  It is predatory.  I preys on people's sympathies as if it were real.  If the story is a pleasurable read and fiction then it should say so and not attempt to deceive people.  Catherine is currently an unemployed Christian in North Carolina.  She is probably as much a victim as they people she forwards her emotional emails to.  I have seen my mother receive these things.  She is 76 years old.  She get them from acquaintances.  I can't say they are friends, really.  But, she believes they are true stories.  I suppose they are harmless, but, not necessarily.  I wish they would stop, there really is no purpose to them.  A collection of story stories makes for a great book.

I was walking around in a supermarket when i saw a cashier hand this little boy his money back, the boy couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 years old. The Cashier said, 'I'm sorry, but you don't have enough money to buy this doll.'' The little boy turned to the old woman next to him, ''Granny, are you sure I don't have enough money?'' She replied, ''You know that you don't have enough money to buy this doll, my dear.'' Then she asked him to stay there for just 5 minutes while she went to look around. She left quickly. The little boy was still holding the doll in his hand. Finally, I walked toward him and I asked him who he wished to give this doll to. 'It's the doll that my sister loved most and wanted so much for Christmas. She was sure that Santa Claus would bring it to her.' I replied to him that maybe Santa Claus would bring it to her after all, and not to worry. But he replied to me sadly. 'No, Santa Claus can't bring it to her where she is now. I have to give the doll to my mommy so that she can give it to my sister when she goes there.' His eyes were so sad while saying this, 'My Sister has gone to be with God. Daddy says that Mommy is going to see God very soon too, so I thought that she could take the doll with her to give it to my sister.'' My heart nearly stopped. The little boy looked up at me and said, 'I told daddy to tell mommy not to go yet. I need her to wait until I come back from the mall.' Then he showed me a very nice photo of himself. He was laughing. He then told me 'I want mommy to take my picture with her so she won't forget me.' 'I love my mommy and I wish she didn't have to leave me, but daddy says that she has to go to be with my little sister.' Then he looked again at the doll with sad eyes, very quietly. I quickly reached for my wallet and said to the boy. 'Suppose we check again, just in case you do have enough money for the doll!'' OK' he said, 'I hope I do have enough.' I added some of my money to his without him seeing and we started to count it. There was enough for the doll and even some spare money. The little boy said, 'Thank you God for giving me enough money!' Then he looked at me and added, 'I asked last night before I went to sleep for God to make sure I had enough money to buy this doll, so that mommy could give it to my sister. He heard me!'' 'I also wanted to have enough money to buy a white rose for my mommy, but I didn't dare to ask God for too much. But He gave me enough to buy the doll and a white rose.'' 'My mommy loves white roses.' A few minutes later, the old lady returned and I left with my basket. I finished my shopping in a totally different state of mind from when I started. I couldn't get the little boy out of my mind. Then I remembered a local newspaper article two days ago, which mentioned a drunk man in a truck, who hit a car occupied by a young woman and a little girl. The little girl died right away and the mother was left in a critical state. The family had to decide whether to pull the plug on the life-sustaining machine because the young woman would not be able to recover from the coma. Was this the family of the little boy? Two days after this encounter with the little boy I read in the newspaper that the young woman had passed away. I couldn't stop myself as I bought a bunch of white roses and I went to the funeral home where the body of the young woman was for people to see and make last wishes before her burial. She was there, in her coffin, holding a beautiful white rose in her hand with the photo of the little boy and the doll placed over her chest. I left the place, teary-eyed, feeling that my life had been changed forever. The love that the little boy had for his mother and his sister is still, to this day, hard to imagine, and in a fraction of a second, a drunk driver had taken all this away from him. Now you have 2 choices: (1) Copy & Paste this on your wall (2) Ignore it as if it never touched your heart.

One final thought about the Teacher Stabilization Section.

When the States distribute the funds they could possibly use the same formula with local authorities that was used to determine their allocations.  I don't recall see that in the section specifically.

I have something specifically for 'An Evening' opportunity to explore a topic.  I think I'll do that sometime tomorrow.

Good night.

employer after the date of the enactment of this Act. SUBTITLE B—TEACHER STABILIZATION

This section may be a real issue for the Tea-Evagelicals otherwise known as Republicans since they have declared a war on teachers and the Department of Education.  The sections below indicate the purpose of Subtitle B and the fact it includes not only the Department of Education but also the Department of the Interior for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  It as though the President believes children of Native Indian decent should matter.  Go figure, huh?

The purpose of this subtitle is to provide funds to States to prevent teacher layoffs and support the creation of additional jobs in public early childhood, elementary, and secondary education in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years.


Under Section 203:

(b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. Funds made available under section 212 shall remain available to the Secretary until September 30, 2012.

The reason I bring that up is because there are many 'sunset' rules in this bill.  Of course September 30, 2012 is the end of the fiscal year that began on October 1, 2011.  There are some provisions I already reviewed with a termination date of December 31, 2012.  While dates may seem irrelevant to most people, except perhaps April 15th of every year, this bill will not be in effect forever and it is why President Obama was saying "Pass this bill now!"

Makes sense to me.

Below are the State allocations in Section 204.  The younger student receives the lion share of the funding.  Nice.  Then the remainder is available for people over 17 years of age returning to work that may need help training or learning for work.


(a) ALLOCATION. After reserving funds under section 203(a), the Secretary shall allocate to the States—

(1) 60 percent on the basis of their relative population of individuals aged 5 through 17; and

(2) 40 percent on the basis of their relative total population.

Actually the more I thought about that the more the allocation is based on a ratio of the number of children which is weighted by 60% for children and what that is in relation to 40% of the entire population.  That ratio will determine the allocation to the State.  That is interesting.

Nope, it isn't a ratio.  It is a simple equation.  No funny math.

State Allocation = 0.6 X number of children ages 5-17 + 0.4 X number of populous of state

0.6 + 0.4 = 1 when dealing with percentages it is easier to divide the percentage number by 100 in order to multiply with the whole number.

60 percent / (divided by) 100 = 0.6  Okay?  Oh, why divide by 100? Because 60 percent and 40 percent is 100 percent.  That's why.

This is interesting and I wonder if there will be lawsuits from the states about this because it overrides a Governor in favor of the children of the State.  I know why the President did this, because, he wants ALL children of the USA to benefit from the American Jobs Act.  This is unfortunate, because, the lack of interest by Republican Governors that turned away Recovery Act Funds did so for political purposes and it has created a void of trust with the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.  



(1) If, within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a Governor has not submitted an approvable application to the Secretary, the Secretary shall, consistent with paragraph (2), provide for funds allocated to that State to be distributed to another entity or other entities in the State for the support of early childhood, elementary, and secondary education, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may establish.


(A) GOVERNOR ASSURANCE. The Secretary shall not allocate funds under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the Secretary that the State will for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 meet the requirements of section 209.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary may allocate up to 50 percent of the funds that are available to the State under paragraph (1) to another entity or entities in the State, provided that the State educational agency submits data to the Secretary demonstrating that the State will for fiscal year 2012 meet the requirements of section 209(a) or the Secretary otherwise determines that the State will meet those requirements, or such comparable requirements as the Secretary may establish, for that year.

(3) REQUIREMENTS. An entity that receives funds under paragraph (1) shall use those funds in accordance with the requirements of this subtitle.

(d) REALLOCATION. If a State does not receive funding under this subtitle or only receives a portion of its allocation under subsection (c), the Secretary shall reallocate the State’s entire allocation or the remaining portion of its allocation, as the case may be, to the remaining States in accordance with subsection (a).

Actually, I believe section (c)(1) is addressing PRIVATE entities within the State and not departments within the State.  It may be that the Secretary of Education or Interior will have the right to distribute the funds to 'service providers' within the State to assist children.  This may not be a States' Rights issue at all.  The way a State would not qualify is if they are under standard and those funds would be redistributed to other states.

Section 209 above is written later in this section.


(a) RESERVATION. Each State receiving a grant under section 204(b) may reserve—

(1) not more than 10 percent of the grant funds for awards to State-funded early learning programs; and

(2) not more than 2 percent of the grant funds for the administrative costs of carrying out its responsibilities under this subtitle.


The Teacher Stability portion of this bill goes on to spell out the State's responsibility in the distribution of funds to the educational system in the form of GRANTS.  The State cannot make loans out of their portion of the bill.  They have to apply these monies as Grants so the educational system has no liability to return the monies in any way.  The grants have to be awarded within 100 days from the date the bill is signed into law.  100 days for RELIEF is appropriate, but, there will be problems if there are States where the Governors are not allowed to distribute these funds without legislative approval.  That might a problem.  The Executive Branch needs to have the Attorney General's Office examine that possibility.  If there are such states where the Governor's authority is truncated by this bill there needs to be an amendment to attempt to override as an emergency provision and/or extend the time frame for those states which is a better option, otherwise, those monies will go to other states and I don't think that is a good approach.

(B) 40 percent on the basis of the local educational agencies’ relative shares of funds received under part A of title I of the for fiscal year 2011; and

I have some reservations about the provision above.  I think.  Let me look at this.

The is where No Child Left Behind resides and the President just signed an executive order for States that are looking for waivers.  The Secretaries of Education and Interior would be obligated to apply these monies appropriately according to those waivers.  States interested and/or eligible for these monies should the bill pass need to examine whether they are seeking a waiver that will assist in qualifying for these funds as well.

The (click here)

Below is the law with changes made by this administration.

ESEA Reauthorization: A Blueprint for Reform (click here)

The States receiving these monies cannot abuse their use.  They cannot set up rainy day funds or use them to pay general bills by the state, they are to benefit the children and benefit learning.  

The local authorities are sincerely the meat and potatoes of the funds.  They have limits on the use of them as well.


Each local educational agency that receives a subgrant under this subtitle—

(1) shall use the subgrant funds only for compensation and benefits and other expenses, such as support services, necessary to retain existing employees, recall or rehire former employees, or hire new employees to provide early childhood, elementary, or secondary educational and related services;

(2) shall obligate those funds no later than September 30, 2013; and

(3) may not use those funds for general administrative expenses or for other support services or expenditures, as those terms are defined by the National Center for Education Statistics in the Common Core of Data, as of the date of enactment of this Act.

The 'obligation' date is September 30, 2013 because the monies have to make their way to the States and then to the local authorities and then they have to be distributed to be used appropriately, so, the benefit of these monies can impact children all the way through this school year and into next school year depending when the bill  is passed and how quickly states can apply for the funds.  That is wonderful.  Local authorities will have a boost to their funding for nearly two years.  Really nice.

There is an Early Learning provision to be used for personnel hiring and/or returning based on the same rules as those for Elementary and High School Students.


Yep, it covers educational fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and it includes this provision for higher education:

and for public institutions of higher education (not including support for capital projects or for research and development or tuition and fees paid by students)

There is a waiver capacity for the Secretaries:

(b) WAIVER. The Secretary may waive the requirements of this section if the Secretary determines that a waiver would be equitable due to—

(1) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a natural disaster; or

(2) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of the State.

Below is the section on reporting which is followed by Definitions and that ends on the top of page 17.  I have covered six pages this evening and I will pick up tomorrow with the next set of provisions on the bill which is "Subtitle C - First Responder Stabilization."  So far, so good.  I like it.  It is a well thought out bill.  I have stated my reservations where I thought appropriate, but, other than that I have no apprehension this is urgent and necessary.  Well done.


Each State that receives a grant under this subtitle shall submit, on an annual basis, a report to the Secretary that contains—

(1) a description of how funds received under this part were expended or obligated; and

(2) an estimate of the number of jobs supported by the State using funds received under this subtitle.


On to Title II



The is the current IRS Tax Code I place here because it is a Veteren's Issue.

      Subtitle A - Income Taxes
        Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
          Subpart F - Rules for Computing Work Opportunity Credit
Sec. 51. Amount of credit

(b) Qualified wages defined

(3) Limitation on wages per year taken into account
        The amount of the qualified first-year wages which may be taken
      into account with respect to any individual shall not exceed
      $6,000 per year ($12,000 per year in the case of
      any individual who is a qualified veteran by reason of
      subsection (d)(3)(A)(ii)).

These are the changes:

(a) IN GENERAL. —Paragraph (3) of section 51(b) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by striking “($12,000 per year in the case of any individual who is a qualified veteran by reason of subsection (d)(3)(A)(ii))” and inserting “($12,000 per year in the case of any individual who is a qualified veteran by reason of subsection (d)(3)(A)(ii)(I), $14,000 per year in the case of any individual who is a qualified veteran by reason of subsection (d)(3)(A)(iv), and $24,000 per year in the case of any individual who is a qualified veteran by reason of subsection (d)(3)(A)(ii)(II))”.

My online Tax Code does not list (d)(3)(A)(iv), but, the others are here:

Sec. 51. Amount of credit
(d) Members of targeted groups
      For purposes of this subpart -
      (3) Qualified veteran
        (A) In general
          The term ''qualified veteran'' means any veteran who is
        certified by the designated local agency--
            (ii) entitled to compensation for a service-
          connected disability, and--
              (I) having a hiring date which is 
            not more that 1 year after having been 
            discharged or released from active duty 
            in the Armed Forces of the United 
            States, or
              (II) having aggregate periods of 
            unemployment during the 1-year period 
            ending on the hiring date which equal or 
            exceed 6 months.
        receiving assistance under a food stamp program under
        the Food Stamp Act of 1977 for at least a 3-month period ending
        during the 12-month period ending on the hiring date.

That should be helpful.

This is the next section of the new bill, The American Jobs Act:

(b) RETURNING HEROES TAX CREDITS. —section 51(d)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by striking “or” at the end of paragraph (3)(A)(i), and inserting the following new paragraphs after paragraph (ii)—
“(iii) having aggregate periods of unemployment during the 1-year period ending on the hiring date which equal or exceed 4 weeks (but less than 6 months), or
(iv) having aggregate periods of unemployment during the 1-year period ending on the hiring date which equal or exceed 6 months.”

And the changes are to this section of the Tax Code:

(d) Members of targeted groups
      For purposes of this subpart -
      (3) Qualified veteran
        (A) In general
          The term ''qualified veteran'' means any veteran who is
        certified by the designated local agency--
            (i) being a member of a family receiving 
          assistance under a food stamp program under the 
          Food Stamp Act of 1977 for at least a 3-month 
          period ending during the 12-month period ending on 
          the hiring date, or
            (ii) entitled to compensation for a service-
          connected disability, and--
              (I) having a hiring date which is 
            not more that 1 year after having been 
            discharged or released from active duty 
            in the Armed Forces of the United 
            States, or
              (II) having aggregate periods of 
            unemployment during the 1-year period 
            ending on the hiring date which equal or 
            exceed 6 months.
       receiving assistance under a food stamp program under the Food
       Stamp Act of 1977 for at least a 3-month period ending during 
       the 12-month period ending on the hiring date.

The next paragraph to The American Jobs Act is a NEW paragraph to the Tax Code so there isn't any old code to display here.

(c) SIMPLIFIED CERTIFICATION. —Section 51(d) of the Internal revenue Code is amended by adding a new paragraph 15 as follows—

“(15) Credit allowed for unemployed veterans.

(A) In general. Any qualified veteran under paragraphs (3)(A)(ii)(II), (3)(A)(iii), and (3)(A)(iv) will be treated as certified by the designated local agency as having aggregate periods of unemployment if—
(i) In the case of qualified veterans under paragraphs (3)(A)(ii)(II) and (3)(A)(iv), the veteran is certified by the designated local agency as being in receipt of unemployment compensation under State or Federal law for not less than 6 months during the 1-year period ending on the hiring date; or
(ii) In the case of a qualified veteran under paragraph (3)(A)(iii), the veteran is certified by the designated local agency as being in receipt of unemployment compensation under State or Federal law for not less than 4 weeks (but less than 6 months) during the 1-year period ending on the hiring date.
(B) Regulatory Authority. The Secretary in his discretion may provide alternative methods for certification.”.

The simplification of qualifying is obvious, there are far less jobs in
the USA then when they left to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan, the economy
is in flux with expansion in the private sector while the public sector
is being hacked away at by Republican Governors, so the ability of the 
Secretary of Veteran Affairs to determine where the jobs are going to be 
for these people would take somewhat of a crystal ball. Therefore, why 
should life be difficult for the Veteran that is a bit 'out of touch'
with the job market from when they left. It is disorienting enough to 
come home from war, but, to come home to a different America is not only
confusing and disorienting but demoralizing when one considers why they
went to war in the first place.

The remainder of Subtitle A of this section comprises definitions of
words other than defining the veteran. It also states where the changes
to the code applies to the employers of these veterans.

On to the next subtitle on page 13. Thank you.

Didn't mention the end of Title I yesterday.


Subsection (b) of section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by striking “December 31, 2011” and inserting “December 31, 2013”.

Is this self explanatory?

Just in case it's not.

Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 


(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010. 

The law which contains this section is below.  The bill is at that link in its entirety or as a summary.  I am not getting into the IRS Code.  Not now.

H.R. 4297: Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (click here)

I an not getting into the IRS Code.  At least not now.

In taking a brief look at that bill, it seems corrupt to me.  It applies to now, that is what is so curious to me.  But, in 2005, what made the Republican House believe this was necessary?  

This is what the CBO has to say:  

A budget report is available for this bill from the Congressional Budget Office, which serves Congress.
Here is an excerpt:

Based on a review of H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005, as ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on November 15, 2005, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting this legislation would reduce revenues by $56.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $80.5 billion over the 2006-2015 period....

We were involved in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Republican House continued to cut taxes and reporting by their cronies the entire time.  They were doing so as if there was going to be a problem in the future, because, this type of 'tax break' is applicable to now, but, why in 2005?  It doesn't make sense?

That is very curious to me.  It looks like blatant corruption.  It looks like it needs an investigation.  Not that it should not apply now, it is appropriate now, but, like...what the heck?

Fareed has an exceptional program in GPS. But, today he blundered on infrastructure.

He stated there should be a 'fast track' permitting process to employee more Americans.

Nice thought, if the country weren't a democracy.  What most Governors believe are 'shovel ready' jobs are those on the drawing board that need to be done, but, aren't funded yet.  Part of that funding is 'the permitting process.'

Permitting processes are very important and contain a 'public response period' most of the time.  It allows organizations such as The American Cancer Society, The American Lung Association, environmental and conservation groups and citizen advocacy groups to participate in major infrastructure projects.  That Public Response Period is a minimum of 90 days.  There are also Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that have up to eighteen months to be completed of all the groups above and more can and should participate.

There has been 'talk' about reducing the amount of time for EA and EIS to a shorter time period.  That is not a good idea and there is no one during this Public Comment Period that wants to be cheated out of their opportunity to participate.  Participation of organizations require the memberships to be aware of the topic, meetings on the topic, research and then compilation of the information and approval by the group before any of their participation or reply to the EA and/or EIS can take place.  That is the way it is and it cannot be turned into a circus because it will simply spawn more lawsuits.

Mr. Zakaria has to recognize the fact that democracy is a complicated set of circumstances that culminate is something called "The Will of the People."  All too often the USA democracy is recognized by legislators and the bills they seek to pass or do pass and the Executive Branch that signs those bills.  However, there is SUPPOSE to be a process and not a truncated process that allows citizens to PARTICIPATE.  Legislators are NOT SUPPOSE to be god and do as they please.  The American people in many ways are cheated out of that opportunity when Legislators take office, as the Republicans of 2010 have, and turn their backs on their constituents and simply pander to the cronies that elected them while manipulating the public opinion of a candidates image.  

When infrastructure projects occur they are huge.  The dynamics that surround them are huge and have huge impacts.  It takes the insight and input of many, many people to bring the best result to the forefront of the project and have it happen well and correctly.  

I have one question for Mr. Zakaria, "Does he want the next huge infrastructure project in his back yard to be fast tracked before he or his neighbors or his favorite health charity has a chance to chime in?"

There is no Spin Doctor quite like Vadar.

Cheney wan't even in office when Fort Hood was attacked, HOWEVER, Awaki was 'out there' as an American Cleric doing the same damn thing he was doing when Fort Hood was attacked, but, Bush/Cheney did nothing to stop him.

The 'issues' surrounding the Foot Hood murderer and Awalki have absolutely nothing to do with torture or exteme measures by the USA.  I think Dick is getting all too desperate and it shows.

...“The Obama administration has clearly reached a point where they've agreed they need to be tough and aggressive in defending the nation and using some of the same techniques as the Bush administration did,” Cheney said Sunday on “State of the Union.” “Don’t get wrapped up in your underwear, then trying to go back and validate, if you will, some of the foolish things they said during the course of their campaign.”

Cheney, appearing on the program with his daughter, Liz, said he wants the president to take back his criticism of the government’s decision to use enhanced-interrogations techniques after the 9/11 attacks.

“The thing I'm waiting for is for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for 'overreacting' to the events of 9/11,” said Cheney. “They, in effect, said that we had walked away from our ideals, or taken policy contrary to our ideals when we had enhanced interrogation techniques.”

“Now they clearly had moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified. I say in this case I think it was, but I think they need to go back and reconsider what the president said when he was in Cairo,” he added.

“If you’ve got the president of the United States out there saying we’ve overreacted to 9/11 on our watch, that’s not good,” he told host Candy Crowley....