The Beginning of a Constituent Revolution.

A great Post, unedited. It is what it is.

 

On The New Definition Of “Rich”, A $620 Billion Tax Hike Offset By $15 Billion In Spending Cuts, And Much More

Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/01/2013 09:49 -0500
We greet the new year with an America that has a Fiscal Cliff deal. Actually no, it doesn’t - not even close. What it does have is an agreement, so far only at the Senate level which voted a little after 2 AM eastern in an 89-8 vote (Nays from Democrats Bennet, Cardin, Harkin, and Republicans - Lee, Paul, Grassley, Rubio and Shelby), to delay the all-important spending side of the Fiscal Cliff “deal” which “can is kicked” in the form of a 60 day extension to the sequester, to be taken up “eventually”, but hopefully not on day 59 at the 11th hour, the same as fate of the all important US debt ceiling, which remains in limbo, and which now effectively prohibits America from incurring any new gross debt as the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling was breached yesterday. In other words, America’s primary deficit sourcing mechanism is now put on hiatus, and all new net debt will come at the expense of defunding various government retirement funds as the 60 day countdown to the real showdown begins: the debt ceiling, as well as the resolution of the spending side of the Fiscal Cliff deal.

What did happen last night was merely the legislating of the inevitable tax hike on the 1%, which was assured the night Obama won the presidential election, something not even the most rabid Norquist pledge signatories had hope of avoiding. This was the first income tax hike in nearly two decades. A tax hike which, regardless of how it is spun, will result in a drag in consumption. It was also the brand new definition of rich, with the “$250,000” income threshold now left in the dust, and “$400,000 for individuals ($450,000 for joint filers)” taking its place. If you make more than that, congratulations: you are now “rich“. You will also be hated for being part of the 1%. and be the target in the ongoing class war.

Who knew that “New Normal” would also bring us the “New Rich” definition.

Ironically, not even the tax hike component of the deal was fully worked out, as it still remains unclear just what the new tax brackets and what the tax increases for the much maligned 1% will be.

What is generally known is that the Senate bill boils down to the following: $620 billion in tax hikesover the next decade offset by $15 billion in spending cuts now. Hardly “fair and balanced.” Anyone who, therefore, thinks this bill is a slam dunk in the House is a brave gambling man.

The said, the “good news” is that 99% of Americans will see no change in their taxes, as was the idea all along. And the evil 1% will get their just deserts, which was the whole purpose of this relentless soap opera

The bad news is that starting today millions of wage earners, will see a smaller paycheck as a result of the lapse in the 2% payroll-tax cut, enacted in 2010, which lowered the employee portion of the Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2%. The direct cost of the payroll tax expiration will be $125 billion per year, or nearly a full percentage point of GDP, and in practical terms, an individual earnings the maximum cap of $113,700 (for 2013), will see their paycheck drop by $200/month.

That’s just the beginning. The WSJ details the various other implications of the expiration of the payroll tax cut:

It will take up to four weeks after a bill is passed for many workers to know exactly what their 2013 take-home pay will be, according to Michael O’Toole, an official of the American Payroll Association, a group of 21,000 payroll managers.

Just before midnight, the Internal Revenue Service issued new withholding tables for 2013 reflecting the expiration of the 2001-3 tax cuts and the two-percentage point Social Security tax cut. But the IRS noted that the tables might change given pending legislation.

The 2013 tax-filing season also is likely to be disrupted by Washington’s wrangling on deadline. In November, acting Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Steve Miller warned that the filing season would be delayed by several weeks. Normally the season opens in mid-January, but this year it may be delayed till mid-February or later.

As a result, many filers won’t be able to receive tax refunds as early as they normally do. “Congress’s delays have pushed back the repayment of interest-free loans to the government for millions of taxpayers,” said Lawrence Gibbs, a former IRS Commissioner now with the Miller & Chevalier law firm in Washington. The average refund is approaching $3,000, according to IRS data.So very much still remains unknown. Here is what is known on the tax side of the “deal”:

Income-tax rates. The top rate on ordinary income such as wages for joint filers earning more than $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers) would rise to 39.6%. Current law would be permanently extended for income earned below that level. Left unclear is whether the $450,000/$400,000 threshold refers to adjusted gross income (AGI) or taxable income. AGI doesn’t include subtraction for itemized deductions, while taxable income does.

The individual income tax is the government’s biggest single source of revenue, supplying nearly half the total.

Investment tax rates. For joint filers with income above $450,000 ($400,000 single), the top rate on long-term capital gains and dividends would rise to 20% from 15%. For taxpayers earning less than the thresholds, there would be a permanent 15% top rate on long-term capital gains and dividends, except perhaps for the lowest-bracket taxpayers, who currently have a zero rate.

Alternative minimum tax. The bill permanently and retroactively adjusts the alternative minimum tax to stop it enveloping more taxpayers than designed. The current fix expired at the beginning of 2012.

PEP and Pease provisions. The deal restores and makes permanent two backdoor tax increases for joint filers with incomes above $300,000 ($250,000 for singles).

When it was last in effect, the Personal Exemption Phaseout reduced or eliminated the value of personal exemptions for taxpayers earning more than the income threshold. The Pease provision—named after the late Rep. Donald Pease (D., Ohio)—reduced itemized deductions for taxpayers above a certain threshold. The formula’s net effect was to add a bit more than 1% to the top tax rate, says Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center, including the top rate on capital gains.

Estate and gift tax. The estate and gift tax exemption would remain $5 million or more per individual vs. the $3.5 million sought by President Obama. But the current 35% top tax rate on amounts above the exemption would increase to 40%.

Tax “extenders.” This term refers to several provisions that lapsed either at the beginning or the end of 2012. They would be extended for varying periods, and provisions that expired in early 2012 would be extended retroactively. Among these provisions are deductions for $250 of teachers’ classroom expenses; state sales taxes in lieu of state income taxes; tuition and related expenses; a conservation donation benefit; and the direct charitable contribution of up to $100,000 of IRA assets for people 70½ and older.

The deal would also extend for five years the American Opportunity Tax Credit; for many taxpayers this dollar-for-dollar credit is worth up to $2,500 and therefore the most valuable education benefit. And it would extend for five years the current versions of the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, which are claimed by many lower-income workers making up to about $50,000.

Depreciation. A one-year extension of current “bonus” depreciation rules, which allow businesses to deduct up to 50% of the cost of a wide variety of property and equipment, excluding real estate. “This will be very helpful to a lagging economy,” says Don Williamson, an accountant who also heads the Kogod Tax Center at American University.

Are you concerned that you or your children will become victims of a child predator?

Protectus Prol is now available in English and Chinese. Parents who speak all languages have a common fear. How can I protect my child and do I know enough about predators? Read this book and become informed. Protect your family.

That fear is that their children will become victims of Child sexual predators. (Molesters) This book, written by a seasoned police detective who specialized in crimes against children and was created specifically for all parents. In particular, parents and their children who are at risk. Make this book available to your clients and help stop worldwide sexual offenders who prey on our children. The book can be ordered through your normal wholesale outlets. The book sells retail at $15.00 Amazon click on images to purchase.

Protectus cover 9780982424926

 

Review

I am a Licensed Professional Counselor working with children and families of deployed service members. In the course of my interactions with these clients, we very often discuss concerns parents express about safety issues surrounding their children. These families have often been relocated to bases far from home and are unfamiliar to their surroundings. By necessity, they become dependent on many ‘strangers’ for assistance. In the course of a yearlong deployment many ‘strangers’ come and go in the lives of these families and the single parent can experience overwhelming feelings of uncertainties about what is happening to them.

Protectus Prol has become a valuable resource to me in my practice. I have referred many parents suffering from Adjustment Issues to this resource to help them identify signs of dangerous people and situations.

chinese cover

 

The author, Jim Benish, has laid out concrete, in depth areas of concern in which the temporary ‘single parent’ can focus their attention. I have received feedback from many parents who express relief and confidence in their unique situations after reading this book. The comments I receive from these clients is that of self-assurance in identifying potential problematic relationships and interactions which have the potential to be devastating to a family of our honored service members.

I recommend this book to everyone in the field of counseling or case management that come in contact with families.

JJ Henson.

Under What Circumstances can your DNA be taken by the police.

PIC CREDIT www.elakiri.com

PIC CREDIT www.elakiri.com

According to the National Institute of Justice 50 States have laws in place that authorize the non consensual taking of DNA samples from humans convicted of certain crimes however there are 28 States that authorize DNA sample taking prior to conviction. In this case the involuntary sample is authorized at arrest.

These laws are being challenged.

The actual circumstances that pre-empt the sample taking vary from state to state. States that do not have these laws are required to obtain a court order authorizing them to take DNA samples prior to conviction of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

National Institute of Justice

DNA Sample Collection from Arrestees

On this page find:

Overview of Arrestee DNA Collection Laws

Figure 1. States That Have Enacted Arrestee DNA Collection Laws in the United States
View larger image and text description[opens in pop-up window]

The federal government and 28 states (as of June 2012) have enacted arrestee DNA collection laws, which authorize collection of DNA following arrest or charging. [1]

Louisiana passed the first state arrestee DNA collection law in 1997. Four other states followed suit before Congress passed the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005. The Act required that, beginning January 1, 2009, any adult arrested for a federal crime must provide a DNA sample. Since 2005, an additional 23 states have enacted arrestee DNA collection laws. (click image to enlarge )

 

Which offenses are eligible for collection?

Of the 28 state laws authorizing arrestee DNA collection, 13 collect samples from anyone arrested for a felony; the rest limit collection to violent crimes, including sexual assaults. Seven states also collect samples in certain misdemeanor cases.

When can a sample be collected or analyzed?

Most states authorize DNA collection at arrest. Only 11 states require an arraignment or judicial determination of probable cause before a sample can be collected or analyzed.

What other DNA collection laws exist?

All 50 states and the federal government have laws that require certain convicted offenders to provide a DNA sample for inclusion in CODIS (the federal Combined DNA Index System database) and state databases.

Logistical Issues

NIJ funded the Urban Institute to examine how key provisions in arrestee DNA legislation influence the logistical activities associated with DNA collection and analysis. The study involves a review of state and federal laws along with interviews of state crime laboratory representatives in 26 of the 28 states that passed legislation authorizing collection of DNA from some subset of arrestees. Although the study is ongoing, the Urban Institute provided some preliminary findings that are current as of June 2012.

The researchers identified the following three key logistical issues that most states with arrestee DNA laws have addressed:

Responsibility for collection

Most state legislation specifies which agencies should collect arrestee DNA. Of the 17 states that designate a particular type of agency in their DNA legislation, most specify the arresting agency, booking agent, detention center, sheriff or jail as having primary responsibility.

Policies governing duplicate samples

Some states do not have systems in place to avoid collecting duplicate samples from people who have been arrested previously. This can involve a significant cost for unnecessary collection and analysis of samples. Collection is estimated at $4 to $6 per kit, and analysis is estimated at $20 to $40 per sample. The proportion of duplicate samples may be as high as 50 percent.

Responsibility for expungement

All states have processes in place for expunging a DNA profile if a charge is dismissed or results in acquittal. In most states, the person who was arrested is responsible for initiating the process. Interviews with crime lab officials show that very few people initiate the process, so their profiles remain in the databases.

Implementation Challenges

The Urban Institute also identified a number of challenges for states that choose to collect DNA from arrestees:

  • Verifying that a sample is eligible for collection and determining if it would be a duplicate can be time consuming, especially for agencies that have older data systems.
  • Laboratories in states that require a judicial determination of probable cause may have to spend considerable time and money tracking cases. The same is true for states that automatically expunge DNA profiles.
  • The sheer volume of samples can be difficult to manage.
  • States that decide to collect arrestee DNA samples can expect to spend money to hire and train additional staff, develop training materials and add new data systems.

To learn more about the Urban Institute’s research, see Collecting DNA From Arrestees: Implementation Lessons. The final report from this grant is expected in late 2012.

Note

[1] Not all states that enacted arrestee DNA laws still collect arrestee DNA. In some states, arrestee DNA collection laws have faced Fourth Amendment challenges in court, with mixed results. The Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the state’s law in 2007; the Minnesota Court of Appeals, a California appellate court and the Maryland Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional. The rulings in California and Maryland are being appealed.

 

How Chris Christie Knew Romney’s Polls would change Overnight

UP DATE: 03-10-13 The cat is out of the bag. Gallop polls were not the result of accepted procedures. Could it be that Christie had contact with Gallop before the Gallop polling even began and knew there was a polling ‘ringer’.

I followed this election year with keen interest, from the party primaries to present. The Republican primary did not need much media developed story telling because there was not a clear favorite and the intense competition between the candidates was such that our media could hardly keep up with the name calling and underhanded tactics provided by the candidates.

When Romney became the Republican candidate for president this all changed. Romney was a clear underdog. He provided no information that the media could hype and Obama really didn’t initially say much about Romney until after the first debate. The news was mundane. Wasn’t it? Romney couldn’t even get endorsed by his fellow Republicans. But he had a lot of money.

It seemed that the only thing the media could write about was President Obama. He did this and he did that etc: The Republicans responded by accusing the media of being biased.

Then the Media got it. They decided to make Romney the candidate that he couldn’t make himself. They would create the illusion that Romney could actually win this election. They would create their own news. They would manufacture adversity, intensity, and animosity between the candidates. They had the tools to do it and one by one the electronic news media giants began to collectively fabricate a close election.

Suddenly the polls changed as predicted by Chris Christie before the first debate. “How did he know that?” I asked myself. How did he so accurately predict on the eve of the first debate, the “Profound” change in the polls that would occur after the first debate? Stephanopoulos or someone gave Christie the “heads up about the upcoming polls” knowing that Christie would not and could not withhold this information. It would not look good if Stephanopoulos made such a prediction himself but to avoid suspicion they needed to give their new polls some credibility. Why not have it predicted?

Christie was the perfect envoy. The Jersey Governor was played like a piano. He probably doesn’t realize it today.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) raised expectations Sunday ahead of Mitt Romney’s first debate with President Obama, saying that come Thursday morning, observers will look at the race as an entirely new contest. Washington Post

“I have absolute confidence that when we get to Thursday morning, George, all of you are going to be shaking your head saying it’s a brand-new race with 33 days to go,” Christie said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

Christie’s prediction was not supported by most of the debate experts. In fact most of them thought it was a close debate but not the slaughter as reported by the press.

I watched the debate and agreed with the experts. Both candidates had their moments however Obama didn’t seem to be himself so I gave a close victory to Romney but thought he came across as a bully.

Suddenly the next morning the polls changed. Romney was off to the races with new found energy. Energy provided by polls. Polls that were presented by the press as actual representations of our electorate. Polls that supposedly had a 3-5 % error factor. The polls continued to rise in Romney’s favor despite his statements that alienated large groups such as women, Hispanics, students, the retired, the elderly etc: The polls defied an intelligent persons reason. They defied the results of two additional debates that debate experts claimed Obama had won. After the last debate in Florida the esteemed narrator, Bob Schieffer said that the polls were so close that he dared not predict an election winner. Mr. Schieffer you are either a part of the problem or your not as intelligent as you tell people.

It just seemed to me that these polls couldn’t be stopped. Even Romney himself couldn’t stop them from rising, no matter how hard he tried. They were even rising in states that Romney hadn’t campaigned in much such as Pennsylvania. Romney’s campaign staff in Pennsylvania is less than 60 and the Obama campaign staff claim thousands that have been in place since 2008.

What is a poll anyway and who provides them and who pays for them? Any person or entity can poll the public using the internet or telephone. The amazing thing to me is how calling as little as 700 people or even as many as 10,000 people can be considered representative of the 315 million people living in this country. A sample of 10,000 people is about 192 people per state but most poll samples used by the press during this election period average less than 1,000 total people or 19 people per state.

I have a little experience with pollsters. My experience is ancient history but assuming that things in the polling business have not changed much, the polls have a profit motive for the pollsters as well as the person seeking the poll results.

Some pollsters are hired to perform specific polls and some polls are generated by the pollsters themselves and are then sold on the open market. Pollsters claim their accuracy just as insurance companies predicts how many claims they will pay out. Pollsters establish the questions asked during the polls and in a perfect world these questions are designed to produce the desired results. Insurance companies insure only people who have good driving records and limited claims thus producing the profitable results. Limited claims.

Pollsters know that in the event the results of their polls are considerably different than the results of their colleagues they have a problem. The problem is, who is correct and why? Wouldn’t we all like to know the answer to that question.

So once the Poll results are rolling down the hill to the bottom, there is no changing direction for any of them unless they all change direction. It doesn’t really matter who continues the polling and who is paying for them, they cannot change their results unless they all do. Of course, this analogy only applies to those pollsters who are considered reputable. And one last thought on pollsters. I suggest that most of the money paid to pollsters comes from the media.

You might ask what I’m getting at with the above rambling. Its this.

I spend a lot of time on the political and non political social networks and blogs. I believe I have a reasonable sense of the sentiment of the nation as I did in 2008. I was right then and I think I am right today. These polls are incorrect characterizations . I believe that the reality is that the polls are not large enough to represent much of anything. I also believe that the press has used them to paint a picture of a close election to sell their wares.

My common sense says that Romney will lose this election and that it will not be a close election. That being said, I also believe that no matter who wins, the press will generate a controversy over the accuracy of the election results of a magnitude that this country has never seen.

 

HOW YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTED IN WASHINGTON

This is the last of my political posts for this year. I am an independent and I will not reveal how I voted. (I mailed it in this week). This post is for any voter who votes independent and votes for who he/she thinks is the best person. I’m convinced that individual party members vote for their respective party candidates no matter what kind of history or philosophy they have.

Sitting politicians do not like this kind of information published. They cannot deny their history or put spin on it. Remember that the Congress and the Senate share more of the responsibility for our countries performance than the President does.

Note that many of the bills were not voted on at all but sent back to committee. Some have sat there for years. No vote no adversity. Both parties are held accountable for this situation.

This is the link that will inform you about the vote results of any topic in Washington in any year. You can also find Paul Ryan’s and President Obama’s voting history here. www.opencongress.org/bill

I have picked a few of the high profile issues and posted the results below.

CONGRESS

Repeal Health Care Act

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2/show

Aye 242 R Nay 189 D

On Passage: H R 9 Small Business Tax Cut Act

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h9/show

Aye 235 R Nay 173 D

H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Aye 251 R Nay 175 D

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/show

H.R.9 - Small Business Tax Cut Act

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h9/actions_votes

Aye 235 R Nay 173 D

H.R.12 - American Jobs Act of 2011

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h12/show

Introduced by Democrats Oct 21-2011 (no action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.15 - Middle Class Tax Cut Act

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h15/show

Introduced by Democrats 7-29-12 (no action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.29 - To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h29/show

Introduced by Democrats 1-12-20112 (no action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.31 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Accountability and Transparency for Taxpayers Act of 2011

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h31/show

Introduced by Republicans 1-4-2011 (No action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.43 - To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity immigrant program and to re-allocate those visas to certain employment-based immigrants who obtain an advanced degree in the United States. https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h43/show

Introduced by Republicans 1-04-2011 (no action taken as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.5872 - Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h5872/show

Aye 414 Nay 2 Abstain 15 Abstain 15

H.R.58 - Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act

Introduced by Republicans 1-4-2011 (No action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.64 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent corporations from exploiting tax treaties to evade taxation of United States income

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h64/actions_votes

Introduced by Democrats 1-5-2011 (No action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.67 - To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until February 29, 2012.

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h67/actions_votes

Introduced by Republicans 1-5-2011 (No action as of 8-10-2011)

H.R.96 - Internet Freedom Act

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h96/actions

_votesIntroduced by Republicans 1-4-2011 (No action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.109 - To establish a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties.

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h109/actions_votes

Introduced by Democrats on 1-5-2011 (no action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/actions_votes

Introduced by Republicans 1-5-2011 (No action as of 8-10-2012)

H.R.204 - Congressional Pay Cut Act

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h204/actions_votes

Introduced by Gabby Gifford on 01-5-2011 (No action as of 8-10-2012)

SENATE

S.J.Res.11 - A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sj11/actions_votes

Introduced by Republicans 4-14-2011 (No action as of 8-8-2012)

S.3369 - DISCLOSE Act

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other purposes.

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s3369/show

Aye D 53 Nay R 45 Abstain Dem 2

H.R.822 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/actions_votes

Aye 272 R Nay 154 D Abstain 7

S.1660 - American Jobs Act of 2011

A bill to provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs.

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1660/actions_votes

Aye 50 Democrat Nay 49 Republican One Republican abstained

Why Republicans want to cut Social Security Benefits.

 

Here we are a week later. Its October, 2012 and the run for President of the United States is rounding the 4th corner. When they complete the 4th turn the sound of the engines will become loud and deafening as their feet press the accelerator pedal to its limit. Their race to be first cross the finish line will pay no attention to the rules, facts or actual intentions.

Today Romney and Obama will have their first debate. As voters, our question is will the debaters be asked detailed questions and will they respond with detailed answers. We know the answer to that. They will not. They protect themselves by wearing question proof vests. The debate will be another television circus. As P T Barnum would say, “There’s a sucker born every minute”.

The media will decide who the debate winner was and talk about it until the next debate. Each television network will ask their “contributors”, (their word for employee), who won the debate and why. We will be expected to listen and hold credence to every word. It’s not only unbelievable but boring. I guess it’s the best they can do.

You can decide who to vote for based on who you determine answered the questions best or you can decide based on the facts. The unfortunate thing is that this debate has nothing to do with Congress. They don’t need question proof vests. The president is the bait. Congress is the hunter.

It’s Congress , who in large, holds most of the responsibility for the condition this country is in. Based on my research I cannot blame any single decade or political party of Congress that would hold more responsibility than the other. They are all responsible. In my next post I’ll provide the individual voting record of every one who holds a seat in Congress.

When researching the voting records of the Senate you just Google “Senate voting roll call” and there it is. Very transparent. Then try to find the vote tally on congress. I spent hours getting this information. Why do you think that this information is difficult to find? Unless you already have the link title you wont find it in the first 5-7 Google pages. You can find the total votes, I mean Democrats xxxxx Republicans xxxxx but no names.

One of the topics that should come up in these debates is Social Security. The fund is supposedly running out of money on its own and now its combined with the Affordable Health Care bill.

The Republicans say that the only way to save SS is to make cuts in the benefits. It’s true that this broad statement can very well be taken out of context but it wasn’t us who uttered the statement. Sometimes I wonder if these politicians know that making broad general statements with no details or backup facts can be a double edged sword. So I have researched and my understanding of the plight of SS is as follows.

Think of the SS trust as two accounts. One is money coming in and being paid out (cash flow) , and the other is excess funds that have been invested over the years and are separate. This (Trust fund savings account) amount equals $2.5 Trillion as of the end of 2009.

CRS Report for Congress https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

Although Social Security is often referred to as a pay-as-you-go system (meaning that current

revenues are used to pay current costs), changes made to the Social Security program in 1983

began a sustained period of annual cash flow surpluses through 2009.14 The 2010 Annual Report

of the Social Security Board of Trustees, however, projects that the Social Security program will

run cash flow deficits (program costs will exceed tax revenues) in 2010 and 2011, followed by a

return to cash flow surpluses in 2012 to 2014. Beginning in 2015, cash flow deficits are projected

to reemerge and continue throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period (under the

intermediate assumptions).15

In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled “Low Cost”) the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the “Intermediate” and “High Cost”), the trust funds become depleted within the next 25 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees’ best estimate of future experience.

Some benefits could be paid even if the trust funds are depleted. For example, under the intermediate assumptions, annual income to the trust funds is projected to equal about three-quarters of program cost once the trust funds become depleted. If no legislation has been enacted to restore long-term solvency by that time, about three-quarters of scheduled benefits could be paid in each year.

The Trustees believe that extensive public discussion and analysis of the long-range financing problems of the Social Security program are essential in developing broad support for changes to restore the long-range balance of the program.

What all this means to me is this. The cash flow is going to go into the negative in a few years. To make up the difference the Advisory Board is going to begin transferring funds from the investment account into the cash flow account to make up for the shortage. The Advisory Board is mandated to project the condition of the Social Security fund 75 years. Their estimate is that there is only enough money (based on current conditions) to last 25 years.

So what s the solution? The board has suggested three possibilities.

Reduce the benefit amount. (the amount paid to retirees)

Add to the amount that is being contributed by working people or the under taxed rich.

Or Congress can appropriate funds from the General Budget to “shore up” the fund.

We all know that Romney and Ryan have proposed cutting Social Security Benefits. Romney has defended himself by saying that benefits for current “victims” would not change and he is correct. He knows that the Social Security Fund will not have depleted the investment trust for about 25 years. We retirees will probably be deceased by then.

My sense is that the Republicans have only one choice, based on the recommendations of the SS advisory Board. The rich in this country do not care about Social Security benefits. They don’t need it. They do not want to pay into it. They would like to get rid of it but that would be very difficult.

If cuts are not made to the benefits to retirees by lowering the amount being paid out to them or raising the retirement age the only option left is for the rich to pay more into the fund or taking money from the general fund and giving it to Social Security or a combination of the two.

Its clear to me now why the Republicans have been so tenacious in their efforts to repeal the affordable health care bill.. The Health Care Bill is of course an addition to the Social Security benefit package. How can they cut Social Security Benefits without cutting health care benefits?

I sincerely hope that the candidates are asked questions that relate to this in one of the upcoming debates. I doubt it.

Read the information in the following links and make your own assessment.

Senate votes for many years: good site

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

Codefore Books

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Your Congressman Voted at One Site

9-20-12

As I have said before. I am an Independent. That being said, I find this election as difficult to decide as any. This recession has caused political agendas’ to surface that we only suspected existed.

Since this is the first of several articles that will give factual information, my challenge has been to decide how far back in history I should give information on. The state of our country has spanned several presidencies but involves present day sitting congressional representatives and senators.

I think it is prudent to start at the point when I realized that our representative’s agenda did not include the welfare of the middle and lower class, assuming there really is a difference in classes.

In 2010 the recession had caused an impact on our financial wellbeing since 2006. Senator McCain thought the situation was important enough in 2007 that he put his bid for the presidency on temporary hold.

The layoffs and housing devaluations were noticeable in 2006 but it wasn’t really known how devastating this would become nor was the truth or extent about the bank fraud known. By 2010 the unemployment rate had risen to 8% in some states and the rate of new applications for benefits had not shown signs of slowing. The construction industry had almost come to a stop and the mortgage foreclosures began to rise to unheard of levels. Banks were going broke.

One of the issues our congress had to vote on were the three or four unemployment benefit extensions. These vote tallies’ were the first sign that our congress had a division of principle that had nothing to do with the plight of the lower classes. It was clear that our two political parties had actually become political representatives of separate classes. Most Republicans did not want to extend the unemployment benefits referring to them as entitlements and the Democrats were pushing to extend the benefits.

We had already Voted for the TARP Resolution 1424 (Troubled Asset Relief Program) known as the” bank bailout” in 2008 that passed 263-171 and the Stimulus bill HR1 in 2009 passed 246-183.

Both of these bills were introduced by Democrats and the division became clear. These bills passed with almost all democrats voting for the bill and all but a handful of Republicans voting against the bills. The Senate vote was along party lines too. Resolution 1424 and resolution HR-1 testify to this.

The parties seemed to be digging in their trenches. These two bills were critical to the survival of our financial institutions but the vote in 2010 for the extension of unemployment benefits had an impact on anyone who had tried to survive as a result of being laid off work. Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul said “I cannot vote to pay people not to work” This statement was answered by yours truly on December 6th 2011. Paul’s statement has recently been echoed by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s “47%” statement.

On November 18, 2010 the House of Representatives voted on extending unemployment benefits for the nearly 10 million unemployed Americans.

The vote tally was 258 for and 154 against. The Democrats voted 237 for and 7 against. The Republicans voted 21 for and 143 against.

There are many more important vote tallies, such as term limits, that you should know about before voting. Some of you may agree with the way your representative voted and if that is the case, vote them in office again. These tallies are not easy to find. It’s almost as if the information is put forth begrudgingly and after excessive searching is done does the information surface. You can find the total votes fairly easy but the actual tally that has a name connected to the vote is not so easy to find. The Senate has done a better job at protecting their identity on vote results. My next post will provide more tallies on any issue that is important to you.

codefore publishing

.

Pay per view gives us the “Republicans vs. the Democrats.” We lose!

The other day I had a conversation with a devout Partisan .

He started the conversation with. “I really like Ryan. He’s ,my man. I like what he says”.

My question to him was, “Do you know his voting record in congress?”

His answer. “No I just know what he says”.

“I know what his voting record is and in some ways it is contrary to what he says he believes in. ” I said.

“I don’t care how he voted. I like what he says.” He said.

“So you are voting for him because of what he says, not what he does?”

“Yes I am. People can change their minds.”

Good Luck America.

If you are like me, we are tired of the political bickering and confused with the options that will be presented to us in the next election process. I am an independent thinker and voter. I vote for the person I think would do the best job for all Americans. After the last election I was disappointed with some of the decisions that our new President Obama made.

My vote is not a political mandate for poor decisions and actions. My vote is not a permanent endorsement nor should yours be.

On coming elections are unique. For the first time in my 45 years of voting, I am convinced that the survival of our Republic and democracy is critically dependent on taking back our country. By force if necessary.

For us to survive as a democratic society we must take back the power given to us by our founders. The only way to do this is to replace the representatives in congress and the senate who have not only entrenched themselves in positions of power but have literally turned their positions into future gifts of political entitlement. Positions that have become personal property to be inherited by relatives. The last few years have indicated that this take-over must begin locally. These small time political wanna be Czars are destroying our localities and police departments in their efforts to secure their positions.

Once we take back our power, we must create new boundaries that protect our interests as a whole. Rules such as term limits. Our congress and Senators have run amuck with no fear of ever losing their jobs. They have voted themselves benefits not given to any other person in this country. They create or delete laws that influence and enhance their personal wealth and protect them from prosecution. We should be so endowed.

If our president does not have the support and co-operation of Congress and I mean all of Congress not just from his own political party, he is in irons. His hands are chained . If I, as a voter, am willing and able to vote in good faith for the person that I think will do the job best no matter what party he/she is affiliated with, I expect my congressional representatives to do the same. I expect them to represent us (Americans) not what the leader of their party or big business tells them to support… Unfortunately, congress does not care about their constituents.

The dominate congressional party is the one that has enough votes to pass legislation, or the one that has enough support to stop legislation. There is no middle road and no quarter given to us, the voters.

One party can stop the train dead on its track. The Democrats and Republicans are in a war with each other at our expense and the expense of our great country. It really does not have much to do with who is president. The people who individually or collectively cause these issues are many times in violation of the law and should be prosecuted. Is it not treasonous to accept money from large military suppliers who advocate a perpetual state of war, a condition that causes a never ending loss of lives and a never ending huge expense born by the taxpayers?

My goal is to educate you and give you the information you need to make your own decision. We can no longer believe what we hear from the main stream news media. Most of the time they are either biased in their reporting or they have not researched the facts. Their only interest is their own bottom line.

The problem is gaining convenient access to these facts. It’s too risky and easy to rely on what people tell us or what we are told by the pundits on the internet and television. It is critical that we do not allow ourselves to be herded together by people who do not have our best interest in mind.

If we do not take back control of our country we have no one to blame for the results but ourselves. We will have blown our chance. I don’t think our country has a bright future if we don’t act independently, immediately and in our own best interest at the polls or support any other method that results in the purging of Washington and local governments.

I am astonished when I hear some of the statements that come from both sides of the aisle that incite anger or fear and generalize statements that cannot be substantiated nor un-substantiated.

I am even more astonished at the number of people who believe these statements ,without question, as fact because they trust representatives of their political party of choice.

Voters, today, right now are the most fortunate electorate in the history of our country. Thanks to the internet we have access to answers to any question that we might choose to ask. The internet.s is the most powerful encompassing provider of events and knowledge that has ever existed in the history of man-kind. The internet is also the most dangerous provider of inaccurate information that has ever existed. The bucket list of most of the sitting politicians contains the words “Get rid of the internet.”

Getting access to the information we need to make intelligent decisions at the polls is no easy task. It takes hard work. In the case of our Congress it has become too easy for them to simply say that a bill was passed or not passed by X amount of votes without actually indicating who, (a name), voted for or against the bill.

This accomplishes two things.

First, generalization does not indicate how our individual congress representatives voted.

Second without specific information about who voted for what we are forced to take political sides.

This groups all the individual congress people together in their respective parties. It’s no wonder the electorate is so polarized. Our congress has insulated themselves from accountability.

It’s the Republicans vs the Democrats. Lack of accountability enables our congress to represent their party, and their special interest groups without repercussions at the polls. They are counting on the presumption that voters will simply vote Republican or Democrat with no information about how their individual representative voted on key issues.

However there are signs that this is changing and changing quickly. The “Fact Checkers” have emerged. They challenge the political pundits and news media on the validity and accuracy of the information they put forth.

Our congress believes adamantly that the veil of protection they have created by the void of truth is so strong that the “Fact Checkers” will be of no consequence to them. This is evidenced by a statement made by Romney pollster Neil Newhouse who said, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” That statement means to me that they don’t care if their statements are factual or not. They will get their loyal followers vote regardless of the truth. I’m presuming that the Democratic advisors are of the same opinion.

There is only one problem with the “Fact Checkers” and that is the validity of the actual Fact Checking. There are now countless “Fact Checking” web sites that purport to provide true and valid facts. These sites should be scrutinized if they do not back up their facts with reliable sources. Statistics are not usually supporting facts. The only way to check facts is to do the research yourself. If your going to do that, why even bother with the “Fact Checkers”?

Brian Williams Curator of facts.

This leads us back my previous statement. Finding the true facts is difficult and time consuming. Should we take a chance on the Fact Checkers? Or not.

We as a country are in the most devastating financial crisis that has ever happened to us. To complicate matters the winds of tierny are blowing.

Today I am an optimist and that’s why I am doing what I am doing. Sure there are going to be those who are uninformed, ignorant of the facts and carry on the generational loyalty to their chosen political party. However I believe there are many more of us who are intelligent and free thinking. Especially our young people. I also believe that more than ever it has become evident to us that the shift of power in this country must change.

 

 

Read The Affordable Healthcare Act For Yourself. Know Who is telling the truth.

So the Supreme Court finally ruled on the Affordable Health Care Act. (Obama Care). There are, of course, two reactions to the decision. Generally the Democrats are rejoicing and the Republicans are rhetorically on the attack vowing to appeal the Act.

In the last few days I have heard two distinct statements about what this Act means or what it says. Republican John Boehner said that it means a reduction in coverage for Seniors and that they will lose their current medical insurance. President Obama said that this is not true. Who is telling the truth?

Back in the day. (My day) my ability to verify of the accuracy of the noxious statements coming from the mouths politicians was pretty much non existent.

Not so today. Yesterday I spoke with a citizen just like me. He was angry at the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Health Care Act. My question to him was, “Dont you think that everyone in the United States should have access to health care whether they are rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy?” His answer was that the Health Care Plan would be funded by an increase in property tax. My question to him was, “Does it say that in the Act?” He indignantly said “Yes.”

I can only assume that someone at some time told him that or he heard it from some politician. I decided to find out for myself exactly what this Act says that has upset so many people (Mainly Republicans)

I find it interesting that when statements are made by people on both sides of the fence their statements are not proceeded with the section and paragraph of the Act that validates what they have said.

We now have wonderful resources to do this ourselves. One is the internet and the other is a program called PDF. This article is not to convince you one way or another but to give you a one stop resource to check for yourself. I have uploaded the entire act in PDF format. In the right hand corner of the Affordable Healthcare Act PDF application there is a box that says “find”. For instance you can type in the phrase “Preexisting condition” and push the enter button on your keyboard. You will instantly be taken to {Title one, Section 1101} Or you could type in the phrase “Property Tax” and you will get the message. {Nothing found} If you type in just the word “tax” You will get many hits including {Small Business Tax Credit} and the title and section for this.

It would be a huge undertaking to find the information your interested in by reading all of the 900 or more pages.

This is a general summary of the act that precedes the actual PDF format of the Act itself. You can access the act in PDF by clicking on this. AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT.

This Act puts individuals, families and small business owners in control of their health care. It reduces premium costs for millions of working families and small businesses by providing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax relief – the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. It also reduces what families will have to pay for health care by capping out-of-pocket expenses and requiring preventive care to be fully covered without any out-of-pocket expense. For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period.

Americans without insurance coverage will be able to choose the insurance coverage that works best for them in a new open, competitive insurance market – the same insurance market that every member of Congress will be required to use for their insurance. The insurance exchange will pool buying power and give Americans new affordable choices of private insurance plans that have to compete for their business based on cost and quality. Small business owners will not only be able to choose insurance coverage through this exchange, but will receive a new tax credit to help offset the cost of covering their employees.

It keeps insurance companies honest by setting clear rules that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses. And it bans insurance companies from denying insurance coverage because of a person’s pre-existing medical conditions while giving consumers new power to appeal insurance company decisions that deny doctor ordered treatments covered by insurance.

The Secretary has the authority to implement many of these new provisions to help families and small business owners have the information they need to make the choices that work best for them.

Protect your child

 

Facism and What Happened to two cops as the entered the US.

Sometime in 2012


This letter was provided to Codefore and the author will remain anonymous It was written to Janet Napolitano and Robert Jacksta in 2012. It’s difficult to believe that this is happening in our country. It appears that no-one is immune except people who do their job in the name of National Security and the Patriot Act. This act, enacted under the Bush Administration was recently extended and not only applies to non citizens, but to Citizens of the United States with no requirement of probably cause, suspicion or anything else.

There must be a better way to protect our country than at the expense of our constitutional rights. If we lose our right to freedom, the right to remain silent, the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches what is there to protect? We might as well live under a dictatorship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

../../2012

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. 20528

CC: Robert Jacksta

Executive Director

Border Security and Facilitation

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington DC 20229

RE: Secondary Border inspection at Tecate California Border Crossing

On ../../2012, my passenger and I were attempting to gain entry into the United States from Mexico. I will not name my passenger in this letter because he is not a participant in this letter.

I will say this about the two of us. I am retired police . My passenger (who I admittedly do not know very well) has told me that in the past he has been employed with a Federal Law enforcement agency. co. I travel to Mexico and back to the United States frequently. I use the Tecate crossing because it is quicker than Tijuana. My passenger asked me for a ride from Mexico where he lives to Del Mar California so that he could attend his son’s high-school graduation.

After passing through the initial custom guard’s station, I was directed to the “secondary area” We (my CIA friend and I) waited there for approximately 20 minutes before an agent came to my vehicle and instructed us to exit the vehicle and have a seat on a bench in front of one of the buildings. We did as we were instructed. We waited, and waited and finally my vehicle was searched. Then we waited more until all of the vehicles that were in the second area before my vehicle was there and after had been searched and allowed to leave. My pickup truck was the only vehicle left. By this time, we had been there an hour and a half. We watched as two agents searched my truck.

When the search was finished three agents escorted us into a room that had a counter and behind the counter was another agent. We were required to take everything out of our pockets, remove our belts, and put the items on the counter. Then one of the agents that escorted us into the room made us face the counter, put our hands on the counter, and spread our legs. We were searched. Nothing was found.

As a cop, I know the routine when a person is placed under arrest and I was experiencing this routine. However when I asked the agent behind the counter why we were being placed under arrest. His answer was, “You are not under arrest. You are being detained.” I asked, “Am I free to leave” “His answer was no” In my mind and as interpreted in US Law I was under arrest.

He continued saying, “I know your employment history. (He saw the badge in my wallet) This is not like it was when you were a cop. You do not have any rights in this room.”

We were then instructed to sit on a long steel bench with our faces to the wall (This wall was about 10 inches away from our faces) and say nothing and do not look away from the wall. We sat on these benches for about 3 hours. During this three hours we were allowed to speak with the agent behind the desk but not to each other. We were not allowed to use the restroom or smoke. I noted that on the wall there was a large sign that said it was a crime to take pictures or record what was going on in this room.

I asked the agent what instance, evidence or information there was to generate this behavior by the Border guards. He said, “As I have told you, you do not have the right to know this information. I could not tell you anyway because I do not know why you are being detained”

My friend and passenger asked the desk agent if he could use the phone to call his wife and let her know he may not be able to make it to his son’s graduation” The agent said, “I will make this request to my supervisor but as I said before you do not have any rights in this room and that includes a phone call.”

We arrived at the border station at about 10:30 AM. At approximately 2:30 PM we were escorted into separate rooms by plain clothes people who said that they were with Homeland Security. These agents identified themselves by name and presented their homelands security identification cards. The said that they had driven to Tecate for the purpose of interviewing us.

I was interviewed by two people, one male and one female. They had an interest in my laptop computer and a laptop that my friend had in his overnight bag. They asked repeated questions about which computer I owned and which one my friend owned.

We were never advised of our constitutional rights to remain silent. ( I can only assume that one does not have any rights in the interview room either). This interview was the first time that I became aware of what this was all about. They had “information” they said, that there were pictures or movies of porn that contained children and that one of us was the culprit. I asked them which one of us was the subject of their “information” They said I did not have the right to know that.

They asked me if my friend was a pedophile. I said “Not that I know of”. They asked if he had ever acted like one, or if I had ever gone to a place where child porn was. I said no. They informed me that they were confiscating my laptop and that I might be able to get it back in a few days. I told them that if they just wanted to see what the computer contained I would provide them with the password and thus avoid them taking it from me. They agreed and escorted me back to the same room from which I was initially put in.

It was now 3:00 PM. My friend was escorted into the room. The desk agent again said that we were not under arrest but not to talk to each other. My friend was allowed to call his wife. He whispered that he had given them his laptop password, I said that I had done the same.

A few minutes later one of the Homeland Security agents said that we were free to leave. They gave us back our laptops and pointed to my truck. It was a mess in side and it took me a few minutes to find my registration, proof of insurance and straighten up all the debris that had been displaced. My friend called his wife and apologized for missing their son’s graduation. Later I discovered that my Sprint Air card was broken and inoperable and there was something wrong with my laptop. I took it to a computer repair place and had it repaired.

In short, Ms. Napolitano, my experience with your border and homeland security employees was the worst violation of US Citizen’s constitutional rights I have ever seen. Not only were their actions intentional they were observed and approved by supervisors. This leads one to believe that this is the result of approved policy.

This treatment of two Citizens (not criminals) of the United States of America should not be forgotten. I’ll do my best to prevent it from being forgotten.

Protect your Children

Links

Librarians protest Patriot Act