Thursday, January 31, 2013

How UnAmerican Radical Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Would Turn America Into One Big Free Fire Zone

















How UnAmerican Radical Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Would Turn America Into One Big Free Fire Zone

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been among the Senate’s most vocal backers of draconian budget cuts and has opposed increasing funds to put more police officers on the streets, said Wednesday that he will oppose gun violence prevention legislation because budget cuts will mean inadequate police forces to protect the public.

Graham told Baltimore Chief of Police James Johnson and former naval Captain Mark Kelly (husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords) that he planned to oppose the gun violence measures because people will need high-capacity magazines to compensate for the police response times these austerity measures will force:

    GRAHAM: The point is, we have different perspectives on this. The reason I will oppose the legislation, Chief Johnston, is because i respect what your do as a lot — what you do as a law-enforcement officer. Has your budget been cut?

    JOHNSON: Yes.

    GRAHAM: Do you think it be cut in the future?

    JOHNSON: I am optimistic that it is not.

    GRAHAM: Well I hope your right, but I can tell people throughout this land, because of the fiscal state of affairs we have, there will be less [SIC] police officers, not more, over the next decade. Response time are gonna be less, not more. So, Captain Kelly, I really do want to get guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I honest to god believe that if we arbitrarily “say nobody in this country can own a 10-round magazine in the future, the people who own them are the kind of people we’re trying to combat to begin with.” There can be a situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here.


President Obama has proposed expanding the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which helps local governments hire police officers, but Republicans have opposed the effort.

In this very good report about the experiences of trained professionals with guns - Your Brain in a Shootout: Guns, Fear and Flawed Instincts - even law enforcement and ex-military cannot hit their targets much of the time under pressure. So wacko Lindsay Graham is going to have people with little to no training with semi-automatic assault weapons spraying their neighborhoods with bullets to keep safe. By all means have a safely stored gun for self protection, but why this crazed overzealous reaction to reasonable gun safety regulation.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

How Conservatism is Diminishing Freedom in America

















How Conservatism is Diminishing Freedom in America

If asked why we live in a great country, an American is likely to respond: "Because we are free." Fortunately for the respondent, explanation is rarely required. Freedom is difficult to define, and today it seems to exist more in our minds than in reality.

In a 1941 Message to Congress Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to explain what it means to be free. He outlined the "four essential human freedoms":

    The first is freedom of speech and expression...
    The second is freedom of every person to worship...
    The third is freedom from want...
    The fourth is freedom from fear.

The 2013 version shows how our freedoms have been diminished, or corrupted into totally different forms.

Freedom from Want? Poverty Keeps Getting Worse.

For every three people in poverty in the year 2000, there are now four. Almost 50 million people were impoverished in 2011. Over 20 percent of our children live in poverty, including almost half of young black children. Among industrialized countries only Romania has a higher child poverty rate than the United States.

It goes well beyond economics. Not long after the FDR era, in 1960, the U.S. ranked near the top among 34 OECD countries in Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality. By 2008 we were close to the bottom. A 2007 UNICEF report ranked us last among 21 OECD nations in an assessment of child health and safety.

Freedom from Want has been least attainable for people of color. For every $100 owned by a white family, a black family has $2. For every $100 owned by a single white woman, a single black or Hispanic woman has 25 cents.


Freedom from Fear? The New Jim Crow.

In the decades before FDR young black men were under constant threat of arrest for 'vagrancy,' and the resulting slave-like conditions of forced labor. Today vagrancy has been replaced by petty drug offenses. In "The New Jim Crow," Michelle Alexander documents the explosion of the prison population for drug offenses, with blacks and Hispanics the main targets even though they use drugs at about the same -- or lesser -- rate as white Americans. In Colorado and Washington and New York City and Seattle the patterns are disturbingly similar: minority arrests are vastly out of proportion to their percentages of the population.

Freedom of Worship? Distorted by Visions of The Rapture.

In 2005 Bill Moyers wrote about the far-right evangelical beliefs that dominate much of conservative American thinking, and which impact social and environmental policies. He repeats a theology professor's summary of the Rapture credo: "The world cannot be saved." Believers are not responsible for the environment, and should focus only on personal salvation. Droughts and floods, which have been occurring with greater regularity as the earth warms, are simply signs of the apocalypse as foretold in the Bible, and thus should be welcomed.

With this attitude, freedom of worship is twisted into a radical dogma that threatens the health and safety of our entire population. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), like many on the conservative right, favors the Bible over science. "My point is," notes Inhofe with reference to a verse from Genesis, "God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Also to be welcomed by extremists is war with Islam in the Middle East, for it is an "essential conflagration on the road to redemption." At a Florida conference on "Biblical Prophecy about End Times," diatribes poured forth with a vengeance: "Islam is an intolerant religion...Islam is a Satanic religion." A reporter came away convinced that "A terrible, final war in the [Middle East] is inevitable."

Freedom of Speech? No, Surveillance and Harassment.

In De Jonge v. Oregon, 1937, the Supreme Court decided that the right of peaceable assembly is "cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental."

Recently released FBI documents reveal that the agency repeatedly monitored Occupy Wall Street activities, viewing them as possible terrorism.

Peaceable assembly and free speech might also describe the act of young men gathering on the streets of New York City. But their First Amendment rights, along with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search, are constantly violated by Stop & Frisk abuses by the police, which at times border on sexual assault.

In addition, our freedom of expression is increasingly compromised by advanced surveillance technologies. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act gives the government license to spy on us. New techniques such as Iris Scans, License Plate Recognition, GPS devices in pharmaceutical products, and Facial Recognition Technology invade our privacy. Drones are flying over our homes. The National Security Agency is building a data center big enough to store every email, text, phone call, web search, and video in the United States. With the Electronic Communications Privacy Act on its side, government is authorized to take anything it can get.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, "True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security." As inequality destroys our economic security, and the prison population grows, and religion continues to impact public policy, and our privacy is invaded, our precious freedoms become more and more a failed American dream.

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org)


The conservative Republican base are a laugh. They fight for the right of a few zealots to have more and more power to take away the rights and economic security they claim to care so much about.

Average Fortune 500 CEO Now Paid 380 Times As Much As The Average Worker


Sunday, January 27, 2013

Paul Ryan(R-WI) Has Learned Nothing, He Still Hates American Values and Moderation





















Paul Ryan(R-WI) Has Learned Nothing, He Still Hates American Values and Moderation

Just when I thought that the National Review Institute demonstrated that Republicans are ready to compromise, Paul Ryan outlined a somewhat apocalyptic vision of budget negotiations there on Saturday.

According to POLITICO, Ryan said “that the nation will face ‘tepid growth and deficits’ under President Barack Obama and Republicans must prudently ‘buy time’ and ‘keep the bond markets at bay — for the sake of our people.’” Like a third-rate objectivist action hero, he is.

Ryan continued:

    “Unfortunately, the Democrats are unlikely to accept our proposals. They refuse to consider real reform. But we will lay the groundwork for future endeavors. So when reform is possible, we will be ready.

    “The president will bait us. He’ll portray us as cruel and unyielding,” Ryan said. “Look, it’s the same trick he plays every time: Fight a straw man. Avoid honest debate. Win the argument by default.

But neither the President nor any other Democrats need to portray Ryan as “cruel and unyielding” because his policies do a fantastic job of that on their own.

Ryan has time and time again demonstrated that he isn’t interested in paying down the national debt or in “reforms to protect and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid,” as he claimed on Saturday. He’s interested in turning Medicare into a voucher program and in slashing Medicaid’s budget by over a trillion dollars — his logic reminiscent of that infamous Vietnam era talking point “destroying the village in order to save it.” And speaking of bombs, Ryan has repeatedly refused to consider cutting one of the most draining and unnecessarily large parts of the budget: defense spending. He also refuses to consider forcing those with mountains of idle or otherwise unproductive cash to pay for these programs, and isn’t content with Democratic compromises thus far, refusing to appreciate the $2.2 trillion in cuts agreed to during the 112th Congress, because he’s cranky about the $620 billion in tax increases.

Moreover, he isn’t even right about the one thing that libertarian types are supposed to be intimately familiar with — the bond market. As I pointed out a few weeks ago, interest rates are about as low as they can be and aren’t expect to rise, and demand for U.S. Treasury bonds is robust. This suggests that the market has confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to honor its debts, and that federal borrowing isn’t “crowding out” private sector investment.

Who’s avoiding honest debate, Congressman Ryan?

POLITICO also reported that Ryan’s outlook contrasts sharply with Speaker Boehner’s. The latter is attempting to compromise with Democrats by forcing the Senate to pass a budget so that the two houses can find some middle ground. But if Ryan uses his budget committee chair to turn this into another fiscal knock-down drag-out fight — something that makes virtually no sense in light of his party’s November drubbing, and Congress’ low approval rating — the ensuing conference committee might make the super committee look like serious adults.

So much for learning from the past four years.

 Ryan is somewhat consistent at least. Paul other radical anti-American conservatives believe in survival of the luckiest. If you have some bad luck you deserve not to have food or shelter. If you reach retirement age and did not save enough you deserve to live under a bridge and go begging for food. Ryan believes to the laws of nature as he sees them. In no way does be believe in the high ideals of true patriots.

The President of the Republican Woman Haters Club speaks from the mount, Rush Limbaugh Calls For An "All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion" To Guarantee A Combat-Ready, No Pregnancy, Female Force All In PMS

As Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus promotes one of the most blatant assaults on democracy in modern times—a scheme to gerrymander the Electoral College so that the loser of the popular vote could win key states and the presidency—the number-one question from frustrated citizens is: What can we do about it?

Friday, January 25, 2013

How Obsessive Gun Freaks Turn Modest Gun Safety Proposals Into Craziness: 12 Rational Responses to Irrational Arguments About Guns






































How Obsessive Gun Freaks Turn Modest Gun Safety Proposals Into Craziness:  12 Rational Responses to Irrational Arguments About Guns

In a recent discussion about gun control on Thom Hartmann's program, my opponent suggested that gun control advocates like me really have a cultural aversion to guns. That's a standard ploy for the gun set: when reason isn’t on your side, deploy emotional and personal arguments instead.

"Anti-gun"? I could've brought up my own recreational gun use, or even brought out the firing range pass I carry in my wallet. But I'll admit that I've lost a little of my taste for it as our national killing spree continues unabated. What's more, that would've been disrespectful to the millions of Americans who do have an understandable aversion to guns. Personal habits should have no part in a rational policy discussion.

Now that President Obama has made his initial gun control proposals, the crazy's being ratcheted up to a new level. Rational Americans in all walks of life will be confronted with these kinds of arguments. We're going to need a playbook. Here are 12 responses you can use when you're confronted with some of the standard illogical, irrational and emotionally overheated statements that gun extremists use.

1. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-kindergartner.

After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it's irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?

2. Saying "If we have gun control only outlaws will have guns" is like saying "If you outlaw drunk driving, only outlaws will drive drunk."

Rush Limbaugh's recent variation on the old "only outlaws will have guns" line went like this: "If you have gun control laws, the law-abiding will be the only people that don’t have guns."

This anti-gun control cliche makes absolutely no sense. We lose our driver's license if we're arrested for drunk driving, or if we commit too many other moving violations. But law-abiding people are free to drive. Gun control laws aren't any different.

3. If dead children are a "distraction," what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?

As Media Matters reports [3], an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a "distraction" from more important matters.

Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies aren't important. And if dead kindergartners don’t deserve your attention, what does?

4. So you've got "Second Amendment" rights? Where's the rest of your militia?

The text of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Where are the other soldiers? Who’s in charge? And which state are you protecting? 

5. Oh, and congratulations on keeping the Lanza kid so "well-regulated."

Along withCrazy New York Hermit Dude, [4] the Columbine killers, the Tucson shooter, and all the other members of your "militia."

6. If I can't drive without decent vision, I shouldn't be able to purchase weapons of mass killing after beating my grandmother to death [5] with a hammer.

Maybe I’m off base here, but that just seems like common sense to me.

7. "Freedom to own a gun"? I have the freedom to own a car. But I don't have the freedom to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank, or the many kinds of rounds -- armor-piercing, incendiary, point detonation, delay, airburst, and shotgun-like antipersonnel tungsten balls -- manufactured for its 120mm smoothbore cannon.

And I'm okay with that.

If our laws had permitted that, I'm pretty sure we would’ve wised up the third or fourth time somebody drove one up to a school, parked in the school bus lane, and started lobbing cannon rounds into the gym, music room, cafeteria, and classrooms -- while fending off law enforcement with a rain of fire from its three auxiliary machine guns.

8. The only other country besides the United States that considers unrestricted gun ownership a fundamental human right is Yemen …

... and Yemen's [6] having second thoughts.

From the UN's Small Arms Survey [7]: "Only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a citizen's basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007 show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in Yemen."

There's a slogan for you: "More extreme than Yemen."

9. Why is it that the people who think our "freedom to own guns" is absolute and inflexible are always the first ones to attack our other freedoms -- of speech, of assembly, of worship (a religion other than their own), of privacy -- in the name of national security?

We have the data which shows that our supposed "gun freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths each year. Most "gun rights" advocates don't care -- and are more than eager to sacrifice other fundamental freedoms even when the evidence suggests it's unnecessary and even wasteful.

Unconstitutional surveillance? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of Wikileaks and other information outlets? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of demonstrators’ rights? Check. Constitutional and rational gun control?

Never.

10. You say guns make us safer, but we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth.

We also have the highest gun homicide rate [8] of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain's, for example.

Are we safe enough yet?

11. "Recreational gun use"?

Which sports, exactly, require an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?

And is there any mass-killing capacity that would be too much for your recreational activity? 5,000 rounds per minute? 10,000 rounds per minute? Or is the recreational value of high-speed gunfire infinite and unbounded?

12. Statistics show that states with more guns also have more homicides. Have you considered starting your own state?

That would allow you, for the first time, to use the Second Amendment for its true and stated purpose: to protect the security of a state.

All the other gun extremists could join you there. Wouldn't that be great?

Most of us are getting tired of reading the obituaries of public servants, moviegoers, shoppers, schoolchildren, and other innocent bystanders in our local papers. Now we can be safe, you can be happy -- and Wall Street investors can keep profiting from [9] guns and the misery they cause.

The state of “Guntopia” isn’t a perfect idea. We would worry about your children’s safety -- but then, we already do.

Instead of guns let's say we're talking about lemonade. Some people have noticed that there is a tremendous amount of sugar in the lemonade and want a little less. The other side says that those people want to remove all sugar from lemonade. The vast majority of people would see that the don't change the lemonade people were being dishonest. A modest change in lemonade law is not the same thing as banning sugar altogether. This is what the battle over modest gun safety laws are about. The other side is saying those modest changes are exactly the same as banning guns.

A New Birth of Reason - A blog post on American freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Fox's Anti-American Pundit Eric Bolling  Crops Feinstein Footage To Falsely Label Her A Hypocrite On Guns

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

The Conservative Republican Movement, Known in The Past as Fascists, Claim Obama's Mainstream Agenda is Too Liberal




























The Conservative Republican Movement, Known in The Past as Fascists, Claim Obama's Mainstream Agenda is Too Liberal

The right-wing media are claiming that the "liberal agenda" President Obama outlined in his second inaugural address is out of the mainstream, even though polling has shown that the majority of Americans agree with Obama's stances on marriage equality, sustainable energy, and other issues.

Right-Wing Media Attempt To Place Obama's Inaugural Agenda Outside The Mainstream

Charles Krauthammer Suggests Opposing Cuts To Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid Is Part Of Obama's "Liberal Agenda." During Fox News' coverage of Obama's inauguration, Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer suggested Obama's speech about supporting federal benefits, and expanding green energy and civil rights was an "ode to big government" and an outline of his "liberal agenda." Krauthammer later claimed that Obama's speech was evidence that the president wants to "change the ideological trajectory of the country." [Fox News, 1/21/13 via FoxNews.com]

Peter Johnson Jr. Suggested Obama Gave A "Hard-Left Manifesto" By Pointing To "Phantom Arguments" In Terms Of Civil Rights And Global Warming. Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. appeared on Fox & Friends to attack the issues raised during Obama's second inaugural address as a "hard-left manifesto." Johnson went on to claim that political moderates would react to the speech by asking " 'is this president in touch with the realities of America?' "

...WSJ Suggests Obama's Agenda Is "Favored By Liberals" But Not Mainstream Voters.  In a January 22 article in The Wall Street Journal, Carol Lee described the policies listed by President Obama during his second inaugural address as "a list of domestic goals favored by liberals." Lee pointed to "equal pay for women, expanded voting rights and a shift to sustainable energy sources":

....Byron York Suggests Obama Was Strictly Appealing To His Base With Messages Like Immigration Reform, Gay Rights, Global Warming, And Expanding Green Energy Projects. In a piece in The Washington Examiner, columnist Byron York attacked Obama for focusing on issues only his "loyalists and activists" base would support:

Well the problem, as usual with what the extreme right thinks is "mainstream" and what it thinks is too liberal, is that on the issues most patriots support the true American agenda of Democrats. 




Monday, January 21, 2013

The NRA is Betraying America With It's Lies About Obama Gun Safety Proposals

















The NRA is Betraying America With It's Lies About Obama Gun Safety Proposals

In a press conference on Wednesday, President Obama outlined a sweeping effort to prevent gun violence in the United States. Surrounded by children who had written him letters voicing their desire to see gun laws passed, Obama announced that he will sign 23 executive orders and bring a set of proposals to Congress.

The President referenced one child’s letter that read, “I know that laws have to be passed by Congress, but I beg you to try very hard.”

“I promise that I will try very hard,” he said.

Obama also condemned lawmakers who vocally resist any new gun measures, pointing out that the gun policies of Ronald Reagan were more reasonable.

The initiatives cover everything from mental heath, to gun safety, to blocking the most deadly firearms from making it to market. Here are some of the most important efforts the President introduced today:

    1. Making background checks universal. Obama wants every single gun owner to go through a proper background check, so it can be determined whether they have a criminal history or diagnosed mental illness. He wants Congress to close the gun show loophole that allows people at gun shows, and private buyers of used weapons, to avoid getting checked. He will also, through executive action, urge private sellers to conduct background checks, even if they aren’t mandatory.

    2. Improving state reporting of criminals and the mentally ill. While all states are required to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) people who should not have access to guns, some states are sluggish about putting the data into the system. Obama will put more money into the hands of the states so that they can improve their reporting systems, and issue stronger guidelines to let states know when they should report people. Obama will also, through Presidential Memorandum, work to make sure agencies are regularly entering data into NICS.

    3. Banning assault weapons. This is likely the most difficult battle Obama will undertake. He wants to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which outlaws military-grade weapons, like the AR-15 used by Newtown gunman Adam Lanza and by Aurora Theater gunman James Holmes. Obama wants Congress to pass the ban, and close some of the loopholes identified in its 1994 iteration.

    4. Capping magazine clip capacity at 10 bullets. A military-grade weapon is dangerous, but so are its accessories: Obama proposes banning all extended magazine clips that hold over 10 bullets. Huge magazine clips allow a gunman to fire off hundreds of rounds without having to stop, even once, to reload. The high-capacity magazine ban was also part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

    5. Purging armor-piercing bullets. The sale of armor piercing ammunition has been banned for quite some time, but is still legal to posess such bullets. Obama is calling on Congress to outlaw ownership and transfer of these bullets, instead of just the sale. Those who oppose any gun laws try to spin a ban on armor piercing bullets as a ban on deer hunting ammunition, but such ammo has the ability to penetrate bullet-proof vests, and is more colloquially known as “cop killer bullets.”

    6. Funding police officers. Obama wants Congress to reverse its course of austerity for public employees by approving $4 billion to fund police enforcement around the country.

    7. Strengthening gun tracking. In order to track weapons that are used for crimes, Obama will issue a memorandum mandating that all agencies trace back firearms. This means that any agency in the country must trace guns used in crimes back to their original owners, as a way to help collect data on where criminal weapons are coming from. Obama will also ask Congress to allow law enforcement to do background checks on guns seized during investigations.

    8. Supporting research on gun violence. Obama hopes to be able to gather more information on gun violence and misuse of firearms, and use that data to inform the work of law enforcement. He also wants to restart research, which has been long blocked by the National Rifle Association, on how video games, the media, and violence affect violent gun crimes. The Centers for Disease Control will immediately begin these efforts, but Obama also is calling on Congress to add $10 million to the pot of funding for such research.

    9. Encouraging mental health providers to get involved. In order to make sure that those with homicidal thoughts are unable to access the weapons with which to kill, Obama seeks to encourage mental health professionals to alert authorities to such people. He will clarify that doing so is not in violation of patient privacy laws. He also wants to dispel the idea that Obamacare prevents doctors from talking to patients about guns.

    10. Promoting safe gun ownership. The administration will start a “responsible gun ownership” campaign to encourage gun owners to lock up their firearms. He will also work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make sure safes and gun locks on the market are effective. He’s also calling on the justice department to help him come up with new gun safety technology.

    11. Funding school counseling. Obama is calling on Congress to fund the positions of 1,000 news school counselors. The funding will come both through the already-existent COPS Hiring Grant, and through a new Comprehensive School Safety program that Congress will need to sign off on. The latter would put #150 million into funding for new counselors and social workers in schools.

    12. Encouraging safe, anti-bullying school environments. Over 8,000 schools could receive new funding — $50 million — under Obama’s plan to encourage safer school environments. Obama wants to help at-risk students by creating a “school climate survey” that will collect data on what services students need, and to remedy any problems by putting professionals into schools. The administration will also issue guidelines on school discipline policies.

    13. Recognizing the mental health needs of low-income Americans. Medicaid recipients already qualify for some mental health services, but Obama would like to expand that service so that low-income Americans have the same access to professional help as those who have money to pay for it on their own. Obama will issue a directive to heads of state health programs, enforcing “mental health parity” — the idea that mental health should be treated as a priority as important as physical health.

The NRA and gun manufacturers are stepping up the paranoid based lie machine. The President believes in preserving America's 2nd Amendment rights. Like Reagan and Bush 41, President Obama believes in some sensible gun safety measures. Both the NRA and gun makers make huge profits off this shameless parade of lies about banning guns outright. That proves they do not have America's best interests at heart, they certainly not acting like true patriots.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Hey Mark Duke, CEO of Walmart, Have Some True American Values And Pay a Living Wage





































Hey Mark Duke, CEO of Walmart, Have Some True American Values And Pay a Living Wage

Walmart has about one million workers, give or take, in the U.S. who are making less per hour, adjusted for inflation, than workers made in 1968. This is remarkable for another reason – today’s Walmart worker, due to automation and other efficiencies, does the work of two Walmart workers from 40 years ago. A federal minimum wage, inflation-adjusted from 1968, would be $10.50 today. The present federal minimum wage is $7.25 – the lowest in major Western countries. In Western Europe and Ontario, where you have operations, you must currently adhere to minimum wages of $10.50 or more.

If you were to announce that Walmart is raising the wages of your one million laborers to $10.50, you would have a decisive impact on the momentum that is building this year for Congress to lift 30 million American workers to the level of workers in 1968, inflation adjusted. Imagine 30 million workers trying to pay their bills with wages below those of 1968, inflation adjusted, when, back then, overall worker productivity was half what it is today.

Raising your workers’ wages to a $10.50 minimum would cost your company less than $2 billion (deductible) on U.S. sales of more than $313 billion. Fewer Walmart workers would have to go on varieties of government relief. Some of that $2 billion would go to social security, and Medicare with more going back into purchases at Walmart. Employee turnover would diminish. If Walmart joins with many civic, charitable groups and unions to press Congress for legislation to catch up with 1968 for 30 million American workers, good things will happen. You and your fellow executives will feel better. Your public relations will improve. So will our economy.

Members of Congress, economists, workers and reporters know you can do this. After all, Walmart has to meet numerous safety nets in countries of Western Europe beyond a higher minimum wage, such as weeks of paid vacation and paid sick leave. Also, your top executives in Europe are paid far less than your $11,000 an hour plus benefits and perks.
One of the reasons Mark makes so much money is that his cost of labor is subsidized by other American workers. This is the kind of income redistribution that conservatives love. They do not believe in a genuine working model for business, they believe in the screw over workers, local communities and tax payers model.

Alabama’s Clinic Escorts Protect Women From Anti-Abortion American Taliban Conservatives Singing ‘Happy Birthday Dead Baby’


Thursday, January 17, 2013

Why is Anti-American "newscaster" Lou Dobbs Pushing Radical Propaganda About The Bill of Rights




















Why is Anti-American "newscaster" Lou Dobbs Pushing Radical Propaganda About The Bill of Rights

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs pushed the extreme conspiracy theory that President Obama wants to destroy the Second Amendment as a first step in eliminating the entire Bill of Rights. But Obama has consistently voiced his support for the Second Amendment, including during the Monday press conference that Dobbs referenced on his show.

During his program, Dobbs aired a partial clip of Obama saying at the press conference, "The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school -- "

Dobbs responded by claiming that Obama is "so committed to constraining or dismissing outright our Second Amendment rights, it makes you wonder why he's not ridding the Constitution of the First Amendment as well." He later said, "You've got to wonder why the president doesn't double down in his assault on the Constitution, taking on not only the Second, but the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fourteenth." Dobbs then suggested that the reason Obama has "begun with the Second Amendment" is because "[w]ithout our rights under the Second Amendment, removing the rest of our Bill of Rights would be a lot easier."

The context of Obama's comments clearly shows that Obama was not "dismissing outright" Second Amendment rights.

In response to a reporter's question about potential government actions to reduce gun violence, Obama said, in part, "I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry about." He also said that he believes we can reduce gun violence "in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment."

And while Obama has not yet outlined specific executive actions he will take to strengthen gun laws, none of the possible executive actions reportedly offered by the Justice Department involve restrictions on weapons that law-abiding Americans may purchase.
There is reality; some executive orders that improve on background checks and some loopholes in the law. Then there is the fevered paranoia and lies of anti-American zealots like Lou Dobbs. Has anyone checked Dobb's birth certificate. He can't be an American. Real patriots stand up for what is best for the country and sensible gun safety regulations are just that.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Nine Conservative Media Myths About Proposals To Strengthen Gun Laws


















Nine Conservative Media Myths About Proposals To Strengthen Gun Laws

Media figures have smeared the Obama administration and promoted myths and falsehoods about gun policy in the days leading up to today's release of the White House Task Force's recommendations to reduce gun violence.

Is any attempt to regulate firearms a violation of the Second Amendment?

Is it true that weaker gun laws lead to lower crime rates?

Does the public support gun violence prevention measures?

Does the NRA have the ability to remove from office politicians who support stronger gun laws?

Have any proposals been put forward which would result in federal gun confiscation?

Are guns that are commonly called assault weapons more dangerous than other firearms?

Are sellers at gun shows required to perform a background check on buyers?

Would closing the private sales loophole prevent private citizens from selling firearms?

Has the Obama administration proposed using an executive order to outlaw certain firearms?
MYTH: All Gun Violence Prevention Proposals Are Infringements On The Second Amendment

Fox News Host Megyn Kelly: The Second Amendment "Was Meant To Prevent Exactly This Kind Of Thing Where Lawmakers Are Trying To Mess With Somebody's Firearm Ownership." On the January 10 edition of Fox News' America Live, Kelly said that "The Second Amendment was meant to stop the government from interfering with an individual's right to bear arms. It was meant to prevent exactly this kind of thing, where lawmakers are trying to mess with somebody's firearm ownership, but the people on the other side say that the founders never could have envisioned a country in which we have 300 million guns and high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons." [America Live, 1/10/13]

Kelly: New Gun Laws Won't Gain Support Since Most Americans Want "A Robust Interpretation Of The Second Amendment." During the January 9 edition of America Live on Fox News, Kelly suggested proposals to reduce gun violence "crack down on gun rights" and are irreconcilable with the view that "the majority of this country wants a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment."

    KELLY: How could they get broad national support on any legislation that cracks down on gun rights? I mean the majority of this country wants a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment. And you know those polls moved around a little bit in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, but this is a gun loving country. And there's just a real question about whether in today's day and age they could push through any significant curtailment of gun rights. [America Live, 1/9/13]

FACT: The Supreme Court Says Guns Can Be Regulated In A Manner Consistent With The Second Amendment

Highest Court Reaffirmed That Regulation Of Firearms Is Permissible Under The Second Amendment In Landmark 2008 Case. In the 2008 Supreme Court case, District Of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment is "not unlimited" as "commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia continued:

     [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." [District of Columbia v. Heller, 6/26/08, via Google Scholar]

MYTH: Gun Violence Prevention Proposals Are Ineffective Because More Guns Equal Less Crime

Ann Coulter Pushes "Gun Researcher" John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" Thesis On Hannity. From the January 3 edition of Hannity on Fox News:

    ANN COULTER: You want to cut down on public shootings? I mean there's been one thorough examination of public multiple victim shootings in this country in all 50 states from 1977 to 1999, it was updated in 1999 by William Landis at University of Chicago, John Lott, then at Yale University, they looked at death penalty, they looked at extra penalties for committing a crime with a gun. The one public policy that had an effect that reduced the incidence of these shootings and the number of causalities was concealed carry permits. That was the one policy. If you care about children dying, if you care about innocent victims, you should be in favor of concealed carry. [Hannity, 1/3/13]

In The Wake Of The Mass Shooting In Newtown, Connecticut, John Lott Appeared On Television To Argue Against Further Firearms Restrictions. [Media Matters, 12/17/12]
Fact: "More Guns, Less Crime" Author Has Been Descredited

Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy And Research: Lott's Thesis Has "Serious Flaws," Expanding Concealed Carry Laws Likely Increases Aggravated Assaults. An October 25 report from the Center noted that a panel of experts from the National Council of Research and other experts found Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" thesis to have "serious flaws":

    A large body of research has been conducted to investigate the effect of RTC [Right To Carry] laws on violence. Most notably, research led by John Lott, Jr. suggests that RTC laws have led to significant reductions in violent crime. But the research showing crime-reducing effects of RTC laws, including Lott's, has been carefully reviewed by a National Council of Research panel of experts, and others, and has been found to have serious flaws. The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults. Using various statistical methods, estimates range from a one to nine percent increase in aggravated assaults as a result of RTC laws. [Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, October 2012]
As usual conservatives have to lie to make their point. The issue is not even about banning guns, it is about sensible gun regulation.

Indiana GOP Lets Glenn Beck Set Legislative Agenda: Introduces Bill To Fight U.N. Conspiracy Theory

You’d be forgiven for having not heard of Agenda 21. Developed at a summit in Brazil in 1992 with support from President George H.W. Bush, Agenda 21 is a series of non-binding UN recommendations for ensuring that economic growth does not undermine the environment. The agreement aims to encourage “international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries” through voluntary actions by UN member-states. You can read the full, innocuous text here.

But right-wing Republicans have somehow come to believe that Agenda 21 contains a secret, nefarious plot to destroy American life and society as we know it, birthing a cottage industry devoted to spreading misinformation about the UN proposal. The most recent evidence of this movement’s reach is a proposal by two Indiana lawmakers to ban the implementation of any Agenda 21-inspired initiatives in the state. The Republican state legislators, Rep. Tim Neese and Sen. Dennis Kruse, proposed laws prohibiting the implementation of Agenda-21 inside Indiana. Neese worried that the document — which has no legal power to reshape American law — was a “mandate” that threatened his freedom:
If conservatives stopped being paranoid fools and zealots, and started basing their opinions on facts than plastic patriots like Beck would have to find a job and do real work to make a living.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Why Does Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Hate America and Rely On Iran as an Authoritative News Source


















Why Does Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Hate America and Rely On Iran as an Authoritative News Source

This morning, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Republican Senator and rising party star Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) cited Iranian propaganda in explaining her opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

“I have not made up my mind,” Ayotte began, before warning that Hagel has not expressed sufficient commitment to using military force against Iran if it develops nuclear weapons. She then pointed to Iranian propaganda, noting that the country “reacted favorably” to his nomination:

    AYOTTE: Iran, this week, kind of reacted favorably somewhat. There were statements that were favorable to his nomination, in fact, they said they were hopeful that with his nomination, they hoped that we would change our policies. What I want to make sure is that Iran is actually not hopeful, but they are fearful as a result of our nominee from a Secretary of Defense perspective, because I think that will cause them to stop marching toward acquiring a nuclear weapon, not hope that we’ll change our policies, they need to change their policies.

On Tuesday, the Iranians responded to the Hagel nomination and used it to take a backhanded slap at the United States, saying, “We hope there will be practical changes in American foreign policy and that Washington becomes respectful of the rights of nations.” Unfortunately, neo-conservatives — desperate to derail Hagel — jumped on the propaganda from Iran’s foreign ministry to make their case.

Hagel has warned against the consequences of war with Iran, but has stated that his position is “fully consistent with the policy of presidents for more than a decade of keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force, thereby increasing pressure on Iran while working toward a political solution.” As a senator, Hagel also voted in favor of several rounds of targeted sanctions against Iran including packages in 1998, 2000, and 2006.

It might be time to impeach Ayotte (R_NH) is her opinion is guided by what Iranian radical think instead of decorated veterans like Chuck Hagel. If Ayotte likes Iranian opinion so much her impeachment would allow her to leave for Iran where she could live happily with her ideological cousins.

Fox News' Bogus Hunt For Pork In Sandy Bill Continues

Republicans learned Nothing From The 2012 Election, They Continue The War on Women. The Republicans Party and the conservative movement seems to have a lot in common with Iranian fundamentalists.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Probable Neo-Nazi Tactical Response CEO James Yeager Threatens to 'Start Killing People' Over Sensible Gun Safety Laws

















Probable Neo-Nazi Tactical Response CEO James Yeager Threatens to 'Start Killing People' Over Sensible Gun Safety Laws

The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes in weapons and tactical training is threatening to "start killing people" if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month.

After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.

"Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control," Yeager explained in his video message. "Fuck that."

"I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight."

The CEO concluded: "I'm not fucking putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

As The Atlantic noted on Wednesday, gun advocates can stop "freaking out" because Obama cannot ban assault weapons or close the gun show loophole without Congress.

Yeager has threatened to kill anyone that calls him a coward as well. He and Drudge are obviously just that, cowards. The only measures being proposed are a matter of gun safety. President Obama cannot and has no plans to act contrary to the Constitution or Congress. Yeager and Drudge are afraid to deal with some simple facts, some relatively minor changes that might make the USA a little safer while also preserving people's rights to own a gun for sport and self defense. Only a coward would make arguments against policies that are a complete figment of their sick imaginations.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Scientists, Democrats Shut Out Of Sunday Show Discussions On Climate Change


















Scientists, Democrats Shut Out Of Sunday Show Discussions On Climate Change

A Media Matters analysis finds that news coverage of climate change on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX remained low in 2012 despite record temperatures and a series of extreme weather events in the U.S. When the Sunday shows did discuss climate change, scientists were shut out of the debate while Republican politicians were given a platform to question the science.

Broadcast Networks Continued To Overlook Climate Change In 2012

Even In Record-Breaking Year, Broadcast Climate Coverage Remained Minimal. In 2012, the U.S. experienced record-breaking heat, a historic drought, massive wildfires in the West, and Hurricane Sandy. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice extent shattered the previous record low and the Greenland ice sheet saw the greatest melt in recorded history. According to the National Climatic Data Center, 2012 was the warmest year in recorded history for the contiguous U.S. Yet despite these illustrations of climate change, the broadcast news outlets devoted very little time to climate change in 2012, following a downward trend since 2009:

Sunday Show Coverage Continued To Decline. Since 2009, climate coverage on the Sunday shows has declined every year. In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on climate change, down from 9 minutes in 2011, 21 minutes in 2010, and over an hour in 2009. The vast majority of coverage -- 89 percent -- was driven by politics, and none was driven by scientific findings.

    ABC's This Week covered it the most, at just over 5 minutes.
    NBC's Meet the Press covered it the least, in just one 6 second mention.

Nightly News Coverage Increased Slightly From 2011, Driven By Extreme Weather. The nightly news shows devoted just under an hour to climate change in 2012, up from 38 minutes in 2011 but significantly less than in 2009. Coverage was largely driven -- 69 percent -- by the extreme weather the U.S. experienced this year; 17 percent of coverage was driven by scientific findings and 12 percent was driven by political stories related to climate change.

    CBS Evening News covered climate change the most for a total of 22 minutes -- a reversal from 2011, when the show covered climate change far less than ABC or NBC. [Media Matters, 4/16/12]
    NBC Nightly News covered climate change the least at 17 minutes.

Scientists, Democrats Shut Out Of Sunday Show Discussions On Climate Change

Sunday Shows Quoted No Democratic Politicians On Climate Change.  In 2012, the Sunday shows did not quote a single Democratic politician on climate change. Most of the politicians quoted were Republican presidential candidates, including Rick Santorum, who went unchallenged when he called global warming "junk science" on ABC's This Week. More than half of climate mentions on the Sunday shows were Republicans criticizing those who support efforts to address climate change. This imbalance was also present, though less dramatic, on the nightly news programs, which quoted 60 percent Republicans and 40 percent Democrats on climate change.

In Four Years, Sunday Shows Have Not Quoted A Single Scientist On Climate Change. Of those who were asked about climate change on the Sunday shows, 54 percent were media figures, 31 percent were politicians and not one was a scientist or climate expert. This is consistent with a previous Media Matters analysis which found that none of the Sunday shows quoted any scientists on climate change between 2009 and 2011. By contrast, two-thirds of those interviewed or quoted on the nightly news programs in 2012 were scientists. [Media Matters, 4/16/12]

Kind of tough to have an honest debate about something when the corporate media excludes dissenting opinions and experts.

Florida's Criminal Governor Rick Scott (R) Inflates Cost Of Medicaid Expansion By 2,500% To Avoid Implementing Obamacare

Monday, January 7, 2013

Republicans learned Nothing From The 2012 Election, They Continue The War on Women
























Republicans learned Nothing From The 2012 Election, They Continue The War on Women

Interstate 5 runs down the middle of California’s San Joaquin Valley for hundreds of miles. On either side are dusty rows of almond, peach and orange trees. In the summer, the ground is tan and dry. Telephone poles measure out the time for passing cars, their sagging power lines scalloping out to a vanishing point on the horizon. Somewhere almost halfway from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a town called Huron.

This is where Carla (not her real name) used to work, shaking almonds from the trees at harvest time for $8 an hour. This is also where she was raped by her foreman. But as a Mexican immigrant with no papers, she was afraid to tell anyone.

It’s a common tale. Some 630,000 of the 3 million migrant farm laborers in the United States are women, and at least 60 percent are undocumented. Most are subject to sexual abuse but fear deportation if they speak up. The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which expired almost a year and a half ago, would have helped change that. But after being held hostage by House Republicans who wanted fewer protections for women, it died in the 112th Congress. The next class of legislators will have to start from scratch on a new bill. Meanwhile, women are waiting.

A 2010 survey by Irma Morales Waugh of the University of California, Santa Cruz, reported that 80 percent of female farmworkers interviewed had been subject to sexual assault or harassment. A recent Human Rights Watch report found that sexual abuse of female farmworkers is so common that many see it as “an unavoidable condition of agricultural work.” And a mid-1990s study by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission concluded that among California crop workers, “hundreds, if not thousands, of women had to have sex with supervisors to get or keep jobs and/or put up with a constant barrage of grabbing and touching and propositions for sex.” The female laborers, or campesinas, called one company’s crops the “field of panties,” since so many women had been raped there by their overseers.

The women are stuck, because even though the same labor laws that forbid workplace harassment for legal residents also technically cover undocumented workers, enforcement is spotty and laborers seldom know their rights. Female crop workers make an average of $11,250 a year. “They don’t want to lose their job,” said Amparo Yebra, a senior caseworker at Westside Family Preservation Services Network, a community group in Huron that provides social services to migrant laborers.

The Senate passed a version of VAWA in April that would have expanded escape routes for these women. The bill would have increased the number of special U-visas, which give temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants who are victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, and who are willing to cooperate with an investigation.

* * *

When the foreman drove Carla home for the first time, it was raining. She piled into his truck with other workers. He stopped at a gas station to drop everyone else off, but told Carla he’d give her a lift all the way back to her place. Instead, he took her out into a field and raped her.

There’s so much space out there in the flat fields, sounds don’t travel much. Sometimes there’s a background noise: an unseen bird chirping, or power lines buzzing, or a giant eighteen-wheeler groaning by, mud flaps beating.

Over the next couple of months, he raped her five or six more times, and she became pregnant. She was 22. When she started to show, the women working alongside her asked who the father was, and told her to go to the Westside community group. Carla went because they gave out free food. At Westside, her caseworker Yebra, who knew all about U-visas, called the police and helped Carla through the ensuing investigation, which concluded with the arrest and deportation of her assailant back to Mexico. About eight months later, in 2010, Carla got a temporary work permit.

* * *

In 2012, the number of U-visas issued by the Department of Homeland Security hit its annual 10,000 limit a month before the end of the fiscal year—for the third year in a row. The Senate version of VAWA would have made up to 5,000 rollover visas from previous years available annually to undocumented women. The bill included additional safeguards for immigrants, and new provisions for Native American women and LGBT victims of sexual abuse as well.

But in the version of the bill that passed the House in May, Republicans stripped out the new protections for these three vulnerable groups, slamming them as politically driven. They also scaled back the law’s existing protections for women—for example, removing the chance for immigrants with U-visas to become eligible for permanent residency after their temporary visas expire. The House bill would also have required a stricter standard of proof for asylum, and would have broken with current confidentiality laws to allow the government to interview the abuser about the applicant.

The conservative movement's message is that they're happy for you to be a silent wage slave, but do not expect basic human rights protection just because you pride cheap labor for greedy industrial farms.

“Tenth of December”: Bard of the wage slaves.
George Saunders' new book offers savagely satirical tales from the viewpoint of the downtrodden

Conservative Nutter Peggy Noonan Lives in Her Own Fiscal Cliff Fantasy World

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Will The Lazy Media Let Republicans Spin The Debt Ceiling



















Will The Lazy Media Let Republicans Spin The Debt Ceiling

The papers are filled with articles reporting in a matter-of-fact way that Republicans plan to use the debt ceiling fight to extract major spending cuts from the White House and Democrats. Mitch McConnell is out there this morning calling for a quick resolution to the standoff — one that exchanges a debt limit hike for deep cuts.

The early returns, based on the coverage of this looming battle so far, suggest Republicans are successfully defining the terms of this debate — they are defining it as a standard Washington standoff, in which each side will demand concessions from the other. Indeed, you can read through reams of the coverage without learning three basic facts about this fight:

1) Republican leaders will ultimately agree to raise the debt ceiling, and they know it, because they themselves have previously admitted that not doing so will badly damage the economy.

2) Because of the above, a hike in the debt ceiling is not something that Democratic leaders want and that Republican leaders don’t. In other words, it is not a typical bargaining chip in negotiations, in the way spending cuts (which Republicans want and Dems don’t) or tax hikes (which Dems want and Republicans don’t) are.

3) And so, if and when Republicans do agree to raise the debt ceiling, it will not constitute any kind of concession on their part — even though they will continue to portray it as such to demand concessions in return. It will only constitute Republicans agreeing not to damage the whole country, which does not constitute (one hopes) them making a sacrifice.

Without these facts, it is simply impossible for readers and viewers to understand the basic situation that’s unfolding here. Indeed, you can read through much of the coverage and come away with the sense that this is a typical negotiation: Democrats want a rise in the debt ceiling; Republicans want spending cuts; therefore, the two sides are squaring off for a game of chicken to see who can extract more from the other. That’s not what’s happening at all, and any accounts that portray it as such present a deeply unbalanced picture.

The corporate media wants it to be a stand-off type negotiation because the drama gets viewers and readers. The only drama here is whether Republicans will go batsh*t insane and trash the economy because of their freaky ideology. Trying to use "deficits" as a wedge is just as hateful and stupid as any other reason, Washington's Deficit Obsession Is Insane


Thursday, January 3, 2013

Smiley Faced Proto-Fascist Fox's Neil Cavuto Falsely Claims Tax Deal Would Increase Government Spending By $4 Trillion


















Smiley Faced Proto-Fascist Fox's Neil Cavuto Falsely Claims Tax Deal Would Increase Government Spending By $4 Trillion

Fox News' Neil Cavuto claimed that the recent deal to avoid ending tax cuts for all Americans adds "4 trillion in new spending." But the $4 trillion estimate is not new spending; rather, it's lost revenue in comparison to what would have been collected if all the Bush tax cuts expired.

Discussing the January 1 tax deal on Your World, Cavuto claimed that the deal expands government spending "to the tune of $4 trillion over the next ten years."

An on-screen graphic also claimed the deal would add $4 trillion in spending over ten years:


But the $4 trillion estimate, which was published by the Congressional Budget Office, is lost revenue in comparison to what would have been collected if all the Bush tax cuts expired. Politico reported that the CBO's estimates "attribute most of the cost to lost revenues or payments on refundable tax credits." The Hill also pointed out that nearly all of the deficit increase would be due to an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts:
    The Senate deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" will add roughly $4 trillion to the deficit when compared to current law, according to new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

    [...]

    The extension of lower tax rates for the bulk of the nation's taxpayers and the addition of a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax would add roughly $3.6 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, the CBO said. Other individual, business and energy tax extenders would add another $76 billion. The extension of unemployment benefits would cost roughly $30 billion, and the so-called "doc fix" would tally another $25 billion through fiscal 2022.

In addition, according to Politico, "CBO begins its analysis from its March current law baseline that assumes all of Bush-era tax cuts would expire at New Year's Day, and therefore gives no deficit-reduction credit for the fact that the deal begins to raise rates for the wealthiest Americans." Politico continued:

    Yet since last spring the CBO itself has warned that if nothing were done, the so-called "fiscal cliff" combination of tax increases and automatic spending cuts could throw the country back into recession. In the same way, critics would argue that the deficit estimates now don't give enough credit to the improved economic growth that could result from the tax cuts.
 Neil Cavuto has been playiing the look at me I'm a nice harmless guy who would never lie game for years. he is a conman in a two-thousand dollar suit who gives America the shaft everyday with a constant stream of lies and spin. Neil is not an American, he is a Puppet of international radical Rupert Murdoch.

Thanks To Gerrymandering, Democrats Would Need To Win The Popular Vote By Over 7 Percent To Take Back The House

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Texas Conservatives Pushing Health Care For Women Back to the Dark Ages

























Texas Conservatives Pushing Health Care For Women Back to the Dark Ages

For most of 2012, Texas officials have been working hard to strip funding from the Planned Parenthood clinics in their state. Those officials advanced their anti-choice agenda on Monday, when a visiting judge ruled that Texas may deny funding from Planned Parenthood affiliates in the new year simply because the organization advocates for abortion rights.

Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in a complicated legal battle with the state of Texas as Republican officials attempt to exclude the organization from the state’s Women’s Health Program, which uses federal and state money to fund preventive care for low-income women. The organization sued to block Texas from discriminating against abortion providers, but Visiting Judge Gary Harger ruled that Texas may design a state-run Women’s Health Program that excludes qualified providers like Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that, on a federal level, states aren’t allowed to block qualified health providers from receiving Medicaid funds.

The new Women’s Health Program launches on Tuesday, and Monday’s ruling ensures that Planned Parenthood won’t be part of it. Before Texas Republicans began their crusade against Planned Parenthood, the organization provided preventative cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and family planning assistance to nearly half of the state’s 130,000 low-income women in the Medicaid program.

Texas’ insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood has already had far-reaching consequences. Some health clinics in the state have been forced to close — including at least 50 that weren’t even affiliated with Planned Parenthood’s national organization — leading thousands of low-income women to forgo the preventative care they need. Monday’s decision will almost certainly cause additional health clinics to close their doors in January, the lawyer representing Planned Parenthood pointed out.

Since the Hyde Amendment already prevents Medicaid programs from covering abortion services, the Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas don’t actually perform abortions for any of their patients in the Women’s Health Program.

If Texas conservatives want to treat women like they treated freed African-Americans under old Jim Crow laws they should be brave enough to confess their agenda. Either that are Texas conservatives should pack up and go create their own country that believes in government tyranny. 

Fox News had quite the year with it's radical anti-American agenda, 12 Unbelievably Awful Things Fox News Did This Year