Tuesday, January 01, 2013


This is a real victory for all the hard work of the Vice President, too.

The Hastert Rule is constitutional? Really? It removes the 'representation' out of a Representative Democracy. Tom DeLay spawned the The Hastert Rule. That should be corrupt enough to get rid of it.

The Hastert Rule: (click here) Initiated by former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert and so far adhered to by Speaker Boehner, it says that no bill will be put to a floor vote unless it has the support of the majority of the House Republican Caucus. The rule, the brainchild of the ‘take no prisoners’ former House Majority Leader Tom “the Hammer” DeLay, was a result of right wing anger at former Speaker Newt Gingrich for cutting deals with President Clinton in which compromise legislation would pass the House with a relatively even mix of Democratic and Republican votes. In order to reach an agreement to avoid the consequences of going off the fiscal cliff---a tax increase for most Americans and big cuts in defense spending and discretionary domestic spending--Speaker Boehner will be under increasing pressure to do away with the Hastert rule or to at least suspend it. It is likely that the broad compromise nearly agreed to by the President and Speaker Boehner that included raising taxes on people who earn $400,000 and above and some retiree entitlement reform could pass the House of Representatives, but it may not be able to garner a majority vote of House Republicans.

This is as bad as the filibuster. I think it might be worse, but, it ranks right up there.

That is right wing political partisan demand of the USA Constitution, there is suppose to be a majority of the votes to pass a bill. This is a political strategy impaling our democracy.

Is this from the Bush years? 

The Hastert Rule nullifies the elections. It removes the right of the MAJORITY represented by both parties to carry out the "Will of the People." This is outrageous.

There is an entire Electoral College that determines the outcome of Presidential Elections. The representatives of the Electoral College reflects the will of the people of this country for the Executive Branch. What gives the House majority the right to remove the will of the people from the authority of the voter?

The Hastert Rule is corruption through and through. What kind of people are we dealing with? They are not the least bit interested in our democracy, they are interested in control of the power of this country. The representation of the people is being removed by this House rule. It needs to stop. There has to be a way in which these rules can be proven to be an attack against our democracy. At the very least, the ethical process has to address those that seek to undermine the rights of the voters of the USA.

This is hideous. It is destroying the authority of the people. "We the people..." Hello?

The Tea Party in all it's variations are unable to govern, so why are elected and do they effect the outcomes of our lives?

There are only 55 Tea Party members in the House and only 51 are returning. So, what is the issue when they are known to be anti-tax and anti-freedom.

By Roxana Tiron and James Rowley
November 08, 2012

Of the 55 members of the Tea Party (click here) caucus who ran for House seats on Nov. 6, at least 51 will return for the 113th Congress starting in January. Defeated were freshman Representatives Joe Walsh and Allen West, members of the House caucus, and Roscoe Bartlett, a 10-term Maryland Republican. Another caucus member, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, is in a runoff with Republican Charles Boustany. Not all Tea Party-backed lawmakers have joined the caucus....

The 113th Congress is convening in 2013. I don't know but I am sure numerologists have a doomsday scenario for that reality. Each Congress has a duration of two years. The 113th Congress is from January 3, 2013 to January 3, 2015. A lot of threes in there. That has to mean something somewhere. Maybe it means the three branches of the legislative activities of our government actually work together to get the business of the nation done. You know the Senate, House and Executive Branch.

To begin being anti-tax means there is no government because in order have a government there has to be tax. It is just what it is. War alone, a national defense costs money. It just does. Whether it is a government function or an ideological privatized function it still requires money. So, to be anti-tax is not possible.

The Tea Party is purchased by the wealthy. It represents probably less than 2% of the population. When it comes to governing they are have no interest in the other 98% of the USA citizens.

TUESDAY, DEC 11, 2012 08:37 AM EST

Koch Brothers, Tea Party cash drives Michigan Right-to-work Law (click here)

Why did Gov. Rick Snyder buckle on an anti-union law? Just look at his big-money donors

The Tea Party is a SPECIAL INTEREST party. It just is. It dearly doesn't represent the majority of Americans. They back crony interests without a second thought.

There is no way the Tea Party is going to do anything, except, to continue to marginalize the Middle Class and cast citizens into poverty. This problem in the House and within the GOP will result in a return to recession. The Tea Party is not at all reasonable. They are not interested in good governance to support a strong economy. The Tea Party panders to the priorities of the Koch Brothers and nothing else. What works for Koch, works for them.

The current bill before the House seeks to continue to stabilize the USA economy, continue the expansion of the economy, continue to combat unemployment while reversing and ending corruption. It seeks to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax which is historic all by itself. The AMT has a been a problem for many years and this is finally being addressed.

The way to ending the national deficit and shrink the national debt is to expand the economy, the tax base and the growth of all the country's economic sectors. This while finding a way to tax those able to pay which does not at all hurt the economic growth our recovery relies upon. Estimates of new revenues according to the bill now before the House is $800 billion over ten years. That is not nothing. If it is not nothing, then what is the problem?

I have to laugh at the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is suppose to mean the government is on a fixed income and they have to make the budget fit the income. Where does it say that? Where does it say a Balanced Budget Amendment stops tax increases? It doesn't and given the taste for 'slick government' by the Republicans no one should assume that will ever be the case. It is grossly unrealistic. In five years the cost of living alone will cause the federal government to shrink and shrink and if Republicans think sequester is bad now, just wait until the Balance Budget Amendment kicks in.

The point is, forget about any movement on the bill before House by any Tea Party member. Example: Marco Rubio, Senator. The Senate bill passed by 89 votes and Rubio voted against it. Huh?

Eight senators voted against the tax bill that passed the Senate. They were: Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa; Tom Carper of Delaware; Michael Bennet of Colorado;  and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa; Mike Lee of Utah; Rand Paul of Kentucky; Marco Rubio of Florida; and Richard Shelby of Alabama. Here are their comments.

President Obama won Iowa's six electoral votes by 5.8%. Senator Harkin stood with Americans like me that believed $250,000 was the cut off to return the Clinton Tax Rates. So, he felt strongly it was a lousy deal. I have to agree. Sincerely. But, I am sure the Veep would say it was the best the Senate Dems could do.

Senator Carper felt the same way, "Unfortunately, (click here) the deal the Senate passed this morning is not the grand bargain that I, and many of us, had hoped for, and that's why I ultimately voted against it."

Senator Michael Bennett is a champion for good values. He believed the bill was not good for the USA and stood shoulder to shoulder with Harkin and Carper. Senator Bennett is fighting hard to solve the farmer and immigrant problems. He wants sincere immigration reform.

December 17, 2012
A recent widespread push in Colorado for immigration reform (click here) has been welcomed with open arms from a $1.5-billion agriculture industry in Weld County that’s battled existing regulations as much as or more than any other. Earlier this month, a diverse and bipartisan group revealed the “Colorado Compact” — an effort spearheaded by Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., aimed at getting the ball rolling on discussions for federal immigration reform. Colorado — with an estimated 180,000 undocumented immigrants — is now the fourth state to put forth such a document. Because of that push, Colorado Agriculture Commissioner John Salazar and others, including …

Senator Bennett is also a strong supporter of alternative energy, especially wind. He is young, vital and sees the future as a high priority in his focus.

Senator Grassley wanted a bill to contain spending. Let me get this right. It was okay to raise the taxes on all Americans, but, the spending had to come down besides. Gotcha.

“It'd be one thing to raise taxes to reduce the deficit, (click here) but that’s not what this deal does.  It's a fiscal farce to raise taxes and hurt economic growth only to fuel more government spending with record deficits and debt.  People at the grass roots want Washington to spend less, not more.  Failure to deal with spending lets them down.  Spending restraint ought to be more than a wishful new year’s resolution with no way to be certain it’s kept....

Senators Lee, Senator Rand Paul and Rubio are all Tea Party members of the Senate. Both Paul and Lee are 2010 Senators. They are just anti-government, except, for their paychecks. Wait a minute, Rubio was a 2010 Senator. Yeah. A Tea Party surge into the federal government and state legislatures. They won't be up for reelection until 2016.

Richard Shelby of Alabama said: “I do not support this agreement," Shelby said in a statement. "Our economy needs spending restraint by the federal government and fundamental tax reform that eliminates corporate welfare and lowers individuals' rates.

"Instead, this package raises taxes, increases spending, and will lead to more borrowing. This deal is certainly no cure-all; rather, it falls far short of the measures necessary to promote job creation, economic growth, and fiscal stability.”

I don't mind what Senator Shelby said. I believe that is true. However, I think it is remiss to ignore the pitfalls of a recession. That is the only reason I would disagree with Senator Shelby. He is correct, there has to be expansive changes to the tax code. Unfortunately, for as correct as he is, there is literally no common ground for that approach. Those sound principles are literally gone from the legislative priorities. So, while I agree with Senator Shelby, his vote was a statement and not reality. 

Senator Shelby's partner from Alabama wanted to stop the tax increases on low income. Alabama has many low income folks. Sessions was correct. Alabama also receives a lot of federal dollars for health care. Public health care.

A statement from Sessions read: (click here) “This legislation is necessary to prevent a large and painful tax increase from falling on the vast majority of Americans. Its enactment will end a long period of uncertainty that would weaken or even reverse economic growth. Now, it is important that we place our focus directly on the real cause of our nation’s looming debt crisis: the continued surge in spending.”

I know these men care about their constituencies and have the faith of their people to represent them, but, what I don't understand is why the citizen / voter is not empowered to move out of poverty through union representation. I am quite sure Senator Sessions and Shelby want their people to be less impoverished, yet, in that reality they still hold back in endorsing organized labor to improve the working circumstances of their people. I hate it that Alabama is as poor as it is. I find their reality and inability to empower themselves in increased economic standing very sad.

I think that covers it. The Tea Party really needs to be defeated. In all honesty, with the whooping the GOP took in 2008, the wealthy and those wannabee wealthy saw an opportunity to cash in on the opportunity to create a new image without sincerely backing qualified people.

The people of the USA want the government to work.

..."It's about working together (click here) to put something together, and we're eagerly awaiting what form that might take," she told reporters at the Capitol. "Let's have the Senate put something together and see where that takes us.

"Candor is constructive, and I think it moved us, but we'll see," she added....

Minority Speaker Pelosi knows the bipartisan vote was an incredible act of unity in addressing the concerns of the country. It is that FACT the House Democrats see as something that should be held as important to ask for an up or down vote. 

She is correct. Absolutely.

The House passed their responsibility to the Senate. The Senate got it done. They got it done within time in relation to the 'time line' of the nation. The House doesn't have room to criticize. If Eric Cantor wants to complain then he needs to keep it to himself. He passed up his chance to make a difference well over a week ago.

Cantor is a prime example of what is wrong with the Tea Party Republicans. He and what's her name, the woman who wanted to be king, sorry Queen. Oh, yeah, Michele Bachmann. They believe they have a right to dissect the work of the President and the Senate. They believe that even when they don't know what they are doing.

Bachmann said, "We need to read this bill very carefully."

No, Michele, you have to read it and vote. If you have to read it carefully and take another month to decide IF you will vote at all that is called incompetency. She can read, right?

The House passed their responsibility to the Senate because they could not decide what a bill actually should read to stop the demise of the Middle Class and Working Poor. The Senate decided the majority Democrats knew how to do that. The majority Senate Democrats actually knew what to do. It is time for the incompetent House to get out of the way, PARTICIPATE in an up and down vote and then SHUT UP! Those are the only rights the House has.

"Slate" is leading the body count to Gun Control

Posted Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013, at 9:00 AM ET
Since the shootings at Sandy Hook (click here) Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, we atSlate have been wondering how many people are dying from guns in America every day.
That information is surprisingly hard to come by. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, for example, has a tally atop its website of “people shot in America.” That number, though, is an estimate, based on the number of gun injuries and deaths recorded by the CDC in 2008 and 2009, the most recent years for which statistics are available. It seems shocking that when guns are in the headlines every day, there’s no one attempting to create a real-time chronicle of the deaths attributable to guns in the United States.

Well, someone is. Since this summer, the anonymous creator of the Twitter feed @GunDeaths has been doing his best to compile those statistics, tweeting every reported death he can find. He was inspired, he told us in a phone interview, by the Aurora, Colo., shootings and simply wanted to call daily attention to the toll that guns take. Now Slate is partnering with @GunDeaths to create this interactive feature, “Gun Deaths in America Since Newtown.”

It is an interesting interactive. Since Sandy Hook the deaths are primarily adult men. There was one teen death.

The adults murdered at Sandy Hook were seven women, including, Nancy Lanza. The children murdered were 13 girls and 7 boys. The icons can be clicked on and the name, age of the deceased along with where they were murdered and the date appears. 

There have been no girls murdered by gun since Sandy Hook, but, there have been 6 boys. One was ten, another twelve and the rest are toddlers, two age 2 year olds and one each 3 and 4 year olds. What the heck is this all about? There are babies being murdered with guns in the USA? Is this acceptable?

There is also an information link to each murder. Children are being shot in drive-by shootings? Accidental? They aren't accidental, they are negligent. The child was exposed to an accessible gun. That is not accidental, it is parental neglect. The parents need to be charged with the death of their child.

I take it Senators are having a new 'feel good feeling' this morning.

"I don't think anybody was particularly thrilled (click here) with the result but everybody understands that the alternative would be disastrous for the American economy," said Senator Brian Schatz.

"The event of the year"

Peace over War

Suu Kyi claims victory in landmark Burma election (click here)

By Steve Finch
April 01, 2012
...The Nobel Peace Prize winner’s allies said she had soundly defeated her opponent from the ruling party, recording wins at all but one of 128 polling stations in her rural constituency near this Southeast Asian nation’s former capital, Rangoon. With results still coming in Sunday evening, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party projected it would claim 40 of 45 seats being contested across Burma. The country’s election commission is expected to confirm the much-anticipated results in the coming days....

This was followed up by historical visits by President Obama into the region. The USA also looked to the Pacific for emphasis a presence for it's Department of Defense assets.

Secretary Clinton has ushered in changes around the world during her four years facilitating democracy.

Her health is stabilized and she will be fine. I expect her to take a well deserved rest. She'll probably write. Her injury to a cranial vein and her new medication has nothing to do with damaging her future. She has a full range of choices to her ambition choices. She has a real challenge though; to sit still, wake to her family, go shopping with friends, decide what hobby has been her favorite to pursue and decide what to cook for supper. She'll have time to find out what ordinary lives are like and enjoy it.

If there are any detractors to her plans for the future I hand them Dick Cheney. I promise you he was on the same blood thinner as she is now taking. That man's health was a mess for the entire eight years he was a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Both Hillary and Burma are going to be fine. We look forward to the future of both.

This is why there is cooperation from the Republicans.

-Income tax rates: Extends decade-old tax cuts on incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples. Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Extends Clinton-era caps on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.

-Capital gains, dividends: Taxes on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.

Where to many with incomes over $400,000 receive their income? They'll still only be paying 20 percent.

I am interested in one and only one scoring and that is from the CBO.

I am so tired of SLICK government there are no words.

We don't need an agreement, the Middle Class that work for a living have it covered.