Posts
Will California finally vote this jerk out of office along with Palosi?
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Cato Institute - Public - Sector Unions
This IS The Problem With Michigan
by Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute
Labor unions play a diminishing role in the private sector, but they still claim a large share of the public-sector workforce. Public-sector unions are important to examine because they have a major influence on government policies through their vigorous lobbying efforts. They are
particularly influential in states that allow monopoly unionization through collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is a misguided labor policy because it violates civil liberties and gives unions excessive power to block needed reforms. To provide policymakers with greater flexibility and to improve government efficiency, states should follow the lead of Virginia and ban collective bargaining in the public sector.
Growth in Public-Sector Unions
In 2009, 39 percent of state and local workers were members of unions, which was more than five times the share in the private sector of 7 percent, as shown in Figure 1.1 About two-thirds of government fire department and education workers are members of unions.2 If you include federal workers, the public sector accounts for more than half of all union members in the nation. Prior to the 1960s, unions represented less than 15 percent of the state and local workforce.3 At the time, courts generally held that public-sector workers did not have the same union privileges that private workers had under the 1935 Wagner Act, such as collective bargaining.
That changed during the 1960s and 1970s, as a flood of pro-union laws in dozens of states triggered a dramatic rise in public-sector unionism.4 Many states passed laws that encouraged or required collective bargaining in the public sector, and states also passed laws to impose
compulsory union dues and fees on government workers. Full Article
Muskegon-area schools rank among state's highest, lowest
WEST MICHIGAN — North Muskegon High School placed near the top of a statewide ranking of schools according to academic performance, while Muskegon Heights schools were close to the bottom.
Being named in the top 5 percent is nice for a district. But being in the bottom 5 percent means state oversight and other reforms under recent state legislation.
All of Muskegon Heights’ elementary schools — Loftis, Edgewood, Roosevelt and King — were among the bottom 5 percent in the recent state ranking, as was Muskegon Heights High. Muskegon Heights Middle narrowly avoided it, with a percentile ranking — also called a comparison score — of 5.1 percent. FULL STORY
Being named in the top 5 percent is nice for a district. But being in the bottom 5 percent means state oversight and other reforms under recent state legislation.
All of Muskegon Heights’ elementary schools — Loftis, Edgewood, Roosevelt and King — were among the bottom 5 percent in the recent state ranking, as was Muskegon Heights High. Muskegon Heights Middle narrowly avoided it, with a percentile ranking — also called a comparison score — of 5.1 percent. FULL STORY
Munis Underperform Treasuries as Default Speculation Mounts
By Darrell Preston
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Municipal bonds underperformed U.S. Treasuries in the first half as default speculation drove state and local government yields to the highest level relative to government bonds in 13 months. FULL STORY
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Municipal bonds underperformed U.S. Treasuries in the first half as default speculation drove state and local government yields to the highest level relative to government bonds in 13 months. FULL STORY
US payrolls number seen very weak-Mac.Advisers Prakken
June 30 (Reuters) - Figures on Wednesday showing the U.S. private sector added a paltry 13,000 jobs were disappointing and are consistent with expectations for a big drop in the upcoming non-farm payrolls report, Macroeconomic Advisers LLC chairman Joel Prakken said. FULL STORY
Your W-2 and Obamacare
NOTICE: I received this update correcting the assumption that everyone will be taxed on health care. Here is what it says on Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/HR3590.asp
Origins: This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone.
The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxingso-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.
In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), H.R. 3590 imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually). Although "the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage" will be reported on employees'W-2 forms, the excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance:
NOTE: So when you get the email below as I did, check it out first to fully understand what it means.
I received an email this morning that explains what Obamacare means to those who have health care through an employer who pays part or all of the cost. A lot of people, (like our public employees) are going to have a real problem with this. Those people who keep telling us we all need to pay our fair share are going to scream when they find out that they are no longer going to get a free ride.
When you are self-employed, everything you earn is claimed on a 1099. You pay the full amount of tax claimed on that 1099. If you want insurance, you pay for the full amount of the premium. And you pay 100% of amy money you manage to save toward retirement.
It looks to me like Obama is EQUALIZING the palying field here. If our government employees and other union workers want employers to offer these great benefits, well, their just going to have to pay their fair share like the rest of us.
Now maybe these government workers will understand what WE have been screaming about. If they want the cost of insurance and health care to come DOWN, then put competition back by making insurances companies deal directly with us. Get the employer and union out of the business of contracting what you should be contracting for yourself. After all, your going to pay for it one way or another anyway now.
Here is interesting some data:
Unionized public sector workers have much higher average wages and benefits than nonunionized public sector workers.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data in Table 2 show that union members have a 31-percent advantage in wages and a 68-percent advantage in benefits.
This line bears repeating: 'Union members have a 31-percent advantage in wages and a 68-percent advantage in benefits.' FULL STORY
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/HR3590.asp
Origins: This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone.
The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing
In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), H.R. 3590 imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually). Although "the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage" will be reported on employees'
Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise.
The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees.
The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a
NOTE: So when you get the email below as I did, check it out first to fully understand what it means.
I received an email this morning that explains what Obamacare means to those who have health care through an employer who pays part or all of the cost. A lot of people, (like our public employees) are going to have a real problem with this. Those people who keep telling us we all need to pay our fair share are going to scream when they find out that they are no longer going to get a free ride.
When you are self-employed, everything you earn is claimed on a 1099. You pay the full amount of tax claimed on that 1099. If you want insurance, you pay for the full amount of the premium. And you pay 100% of amy money you manage to save toward retirement.
It looks to me like Obama is EQUALIZING the palying field here. If our government employees and other union workers want employers to offer these great benefits, well, their just going to have to pay their fair share like the rest of us.
Now maybe these government workers will understand what WE have been screaming about. If they want the cost of insurance and health care to come DOWN, then put competition back by making insurances companies deal directly with us. Get the employer and union out of the business of contracting what you should be contracting for yourself. After all, your going to pay for it one way or another anyway now.
Starting in 2011-next year-the W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be
increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are provided.
It doesn't matter if you're retired; your gross income WILL go up by the
amount of insurance your employer paid for. So you'll be required to pay
taxes on a larger sum of money that you actually received; take the tax form
you just finished and see what $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 additional gross
income does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many
it puts you into a much higher bracket. This is how the government is going
to buy insurance for fifteen (15) percent that don't have insurance and it's
only part of the tax increases, but it's not really a "tax increase" as
such, it a redefinition of your taxable income.
Not believing this I researched the CRS Summary and here's what found:
Title IX Revenue Provisions-Subtitle A: Revenue Offset
"(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee
the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage
that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of
contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."
Joan Pryde, is the Senior Tax Editor for the Kiplinger Letters. Go to
Kiplinger's and read about the thirteen (13) tax changes
for 2010 that could affect you.
The Cost of Unions - Veronique de Rugy - The Corner on National Review Online
Here is interesting some data:
Unionized public sector workers have much higher average wages and benefits than nonunionized public sector workers.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data in Table 2 show that union members have a 31-percent advantage in wages and a 68-percent advantage in benefits.
This line bears repeating: 'Union members have a 31-percent advantage in wages and a 68-percent advantage in benefits.' FULL STORY
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
As you can see from today's posts below, Lame Stream Media and the TV Pundits are finally admitting what Ron Paul, Peter Shiff, and many others have said all along. The Keynesian economics doesn't work. I heard it several times on FOX just yesterday.
That's right, the same FOX NEWS that laughed and ridiculed Ron Paul when he ran in the last primaries. Ever wonder what would have happened if the GOP and FOX hadn't done everything they could to keep Ron Paul from winning the nomination? I do.
We wouldn't have had the bank bailout because Ron Paul would have made it a very unpopular vote.
We might see more support for ending the Private Federal Reserve Bank's control over our monetary system.
There would be an end to spending bills because Ron Paul would make it much harder to get them passed by his veto.
But, now, we can only hope that Ron Paul will run again and this time, maybe, just maybe, the media as well as the people of this country will be more accepting of the truth and allow someone come in and clean up this mess. Will it be painful, you bet it will, but it didn't have to get this bad except no one wanted to face reality back then. Now we will all suffer through the process together and hope that future generations will not make the same mistakes that we did.
That's right, the same FOX NEWS that laughed and ridiculed Ron Paul when he ran in the last primaries. Ever wonder what would have happened if the GOP and FOX hadn't done everything they could to keep Ron Paul from winning the nomination? I do.
We wouldn't have had the bank bailout because Ron Paul would have made it a very unpopular vote.
We might see more support for ending the Private Federal Reserve Bank's control over our monetary system.
There would be an end to spending bills because Ron Paul would make it much harder to get them passed by his veto.
But, now, we can only hope that Ron Paul will run again and this time, maybe, just maybe, the media as well as the people of this country will be more accepting of the truth and allow someone come in and clean up this mess. Will it be painful, you bet it will, but it didn't have to get this bad except no one wanted to face reality back then. Now we will all suffer through the process together and hope that future generations will not make the same mistakes that we did.
Two-year Treasury yields at record low as stocks fall
(Reuters) - Two-year U.S. Treasury yields hit a record low on Tuesday and futures rallied to their highest since April 2009 as weak Asian stock performance and euro zone banking worries fueled a bid for the safety of U.S. debt. FULL STORY
by Ryan Jaroncyk
Tue, Jun 29th 2010
In a New York Times op-ed, Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, warned that the United States has entered the initial stages of a third Depression. In his view, inadequate fiscal and monetary stimulus, coupled with obsessive worry about short-term, record breaking budget deficits, are increasing the probability of a long, deflationary-driven Depression.
And it's not just Krugman predicting economic depression, either.
Other economists and trends analysts are making similar predictions, but unlike Krugman, they believe looser monetary policy at the Federal Reserve and even higher deficit spending in DC will serve as catalysts for the next leg down.
For example, from the Austrian school of economics, Dr. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff believe America has already entered another long-term depression. But, in contrast to Krugman, they posit that excessive money printing and skyrocketing debt levels will lead to a collapse of the US Dollar. As a result, Paul and Schiff propose an intense bout of short-term pain involving spending cuts, balanced budgets, higher interest rates, and a cessation of government bailouts in order to restore economic stability in the medium and long-term.
Top economic trends analyst, Mike Shedlock, advocates a similar, tough love approach, though unlike Paul and Schiff, he believes a deflationary Depression, not an inflationary Depression, could be on the way.
Leading trends forecaster Gerald Celente has predicted the "Crash of 2010" and an ensuing Depression. And like Shedlock, Paul, and Schiff, Celente believes the Keynesian approach advocated by Krugman and other like-minded policy experts has already proven to be a failure. FULL STORY
PAUL KRUGMAN FEARS AMERICA HAS ENTERED ITS THIRD DEPRESSION
by Ryan Jaroncyk
Tue, Jun 29th 2010
In a New York Times op-ed, Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, warned that the United States has entered the initial stages of a third Depression. In his view, inadequate fiscal and monetary stimulus, coupled with obsessive worry about short-term, record breaking budget deficits, are increasing the probability of a long, deflationary-driven Depression.
And it's not just Krugman predicting economic depression, either.
Other economists and trends analysts are making similar predictions, but unlike Krugman, they believe looser monetary policy at the Federal Reserve and even higher deficit spending in DC will serve as catalysts for the next leg down.
For example, from the Austrian school of economics, Dr. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff believe America has already entered another long-term depression. But, in contrast to Krugman, they posit that excessive money printing and skyrocketing debt levels will lead to a collapse of the US Dollar. As a result, Paul and Schiff propose an intense bout of short-term pain involving spending cuts, balanced budgets, higher interest rates, and a cessation of government bailouts in order to restore economic stability in the medium and long-term.
Top economic trends analyst, Mike Shedlock, advocates a similar, tough love approach, though unlike Paul and Schiff, he believes a deflationary Depression, not an inflationary Depression, could be on the way.
Leading trends forecaster Gerald Celente has predicted the "Crash of 2010" and an ensuing Depression. And like Shedlock, Paul, and Schiff, Celente believes the Keynesian approach advocated by Krugman and other like-minded policy experts has already proven to be a failure. FULL STORY
GERALD CELENTE WITH ERNEST HANCOCK OF LIBERTY NEWS RADIO 6/22/10
The Third Depression
By PAUL KRUGMAN
OP-ED The New York Times
Published: June 27, 2010
Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.
Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.
We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense. FULL STORY
OP-ED The New York Times
Published: June 27, 2010
Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.
Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.
We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense. FULL STORY
Monday, June 28, 2010
Maine Freedom Watchdogs: Jurors Defend Our Freedom
Maine Freedom Watchdogs addresses the issues that affect the freedom of all Mainers. Hosted by Jarrod LeBlanc. The first page of the Maine constitution says that jurors have the right to judge the law. This power of the jury to veto unconstitutional laws is showcased.
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-07 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir. 1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir. 1983); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-97 (6th Cir. 1974).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-07 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir. 1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir. 1983); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-97 (6th Cir. 1974).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
pp 22 ARTICLE 7.
JURIES AND THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. ( NOTE: Common law is not Statute Law )
RUTH JOHNSON for Secretary of State
Choosing the Right Candidate for any office is a very difficult and time consuming process. Why? Well, speaking for myself, there is only one label that I want to be identified with. I am an Original Intent Constitutionalist. So, when I look for a candidate that I can get behind and support, indorse and campaign for, I look at their background for experience necessary to do the job their interviewing for, and where do they stand on Constitutional Issues of Personal Liberty and Freedom.
The terms Fiscal Conservative or Social Conservative only means to me that the candidate is less socialist than the socialists Democrats.
Then there are some candidates who say all the right things that they think people want to hear but when you check out their background, they don't have the needed experience to handle the job, ( we already see how that's working out in the White House ) and they don't have a track record of supporting these ideas their campaigning on.
So far here in Michigan, only one candidate has acquired an indorsement from Ron Paul. state Rep. Justin Amash who is a Republican candidate for the 3rd U. S. House District. To me, that means that out of the 9 candidates ( includes all parties )who want to be Governor of Michigan, they either have failed to ask for a Ron Paul indorsement, or they just don't feel they need it. I have to assume the former, they have failed to meet the standards of the type of Governor that will adhere to the Michigan Constitution.
This same measure applies to 7 Republicans who are asking for Pete Hoekstra's 2nd Congressional seat. Not one of them have received an indorsement from Ron Paul. They all claim they are Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives, but what about the Constitution? Where do they stand on protecting and defending personal INALIENABLE Rights.
inalienable |inˈālēənəbəl|
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor : freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights.
So, Please watch the video below to see and listen to why so many people supported Ron Paul and why his indorsement is so important.
I am going to give my Indorsement to Ruth Johnson for Secretary of State. This is a very important position and as Oakland County Clerk/Register of Deeds, Ruth Johnson has a proven track record of respecting the personal privacy rights by instructing that SS# on registered documents be removed from public view. She is against inserting a RFID chip in drivers license and has investigated corruption and convicted a public official. We need more candidates like Ruth Johnson.
The terms Fiscal Conservative or Social Conservative only means to me that the candidate is less socialist than the socialists Democrats.
Then there are some candidates who say all the right things that they think people want to hear but when you check out their background, they don't have the needed experience to handle the job, ( we already see how that's working out in the White House ) and they don't have a track record of supporting these ideas their campaigning on.
So far here in Michigan, only one candidate has acquired an indorsement from Ron Paul. state Rep. Justin Amash who is a Republican candidate for the 3rd U. S. House District. To me, that means that out of the 9 candidates ( includes all parties )who want to be Governor of Michigan, they either have failed to ask for a Ron Paul indorsement, or they just don't feel they need it. I have to assume the former, they have failed to meet the standards of the type of Governor that will adhere to the Michigan Constitution.
This same measure applies to 7 Republicans who are asking for Pete Hoekstra's 2nd Congressional seat. Not one of them have received an indorsement from Ron Paul. They all claim they are Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives, but what about the Constitution? Where do they stand on protecting and defending personal INALIENABLE Rights.
inalienable |inˈālēənəbəl|
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor : freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added) West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)
So, Please watch the video below to see and listen to why so many people supported Ron Paul and why his indorsement is so important.
How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty
I am going to give my Indorsement to Ruth Johnson for Secretary of State. This is a very important position and as Oakland County Clerk/Register of Deeds, Ruth Johnson has a proven track record of respecting the personal privacy rights by instructing that SS# on registered documents be removed from public view. She is against inserting a RFID chip in drivers license and has investigated corruption and convicted a public official. We need more candidates like Ruth Johnson.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The DRIC Bridge & HB HB 4961- A Conversation with Rep. Paul Opsommer
Recently I had an opportunity to converse with Rep. Paul Opsommer about the hotly debated DRIC bridge and HB 4961.
Below is the results: FULL STORY
Below is the results: FULL STORY
Withdrawing Support for Rick Snyder
The nice thing about Blogs is that when you put something out here, people read it and send you information that you may not have known about. Such as the information below of who Rick Snyder has supported in the past.
To some, these may not be important issues, but they are to me. While I still feel the Rick is qualified as a business man to do the job he's applying for, there are still some questions related to the Constitution that no one seems to know where Rick stands. What Michigan does not need is another Progressive who will ignore individual rights. It's back to the drawing board for me. I have to find the best candidate who will adhere to our Michigan Constitution and Bill of Rights which will bring FREEDOM and PROSPERITY back to Michigan.
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105ARDESTA LLC/EXECUTIVE 6/23/06 $1,000Dingell, John D (D)SNYDER, RICK
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105ARDESTA INC./PRESIDENT6/23/05 $500Its My Party Too PAC
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105 ARDESTA/PRESIDENT 10/25/04 $2,000 Schwarz, Joe (R)SNYDER, RICHARD
ANN ARBOR,MI 48108 ARDESTA/PRESIDENT 11/18/05 $1,950 Schwarz, Joe (R)SNYDER, RICHARD
Joe Schwarz (R-District 7) voting record http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Joe_Schwarz.htm
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105 ARDESTA/CEO 5/14/03 $1,000 Dingell, John D (D)SNYDER, RICHARD D
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105 ARDESTA, LLC/CE O6/23/08 $1,000 Dingell, John D (D)SNYDER, RICHARD D
John Dingel [D-M15] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400110
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105ARDESTA/CEO 10/26/06 $1,000 Its My Party Too PAC SNYDER, RICHARD MR
Its My Party Too PAC
(IMP-PAC), intended to help elect moderate pro-abort Republicans at all levels of government. IMP-PAC is allied with the other "progressive Republican" PACS
To some, these may not be important issues, but they are to me. While I still feel the Rick is qualified as a business man to do the job he's applying for, there are still some questions related to the Constitution that no one seems to know where Rick stands. What Michigan does not need is another Progressive who will ignore individual rights. It's back to the drawing board for me. I have to find the best candidate who will adhere to our Michigan Constitution and Bill of Rights which will bring FREEDOM and PROSPERITY back to Michigan.
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105ARDESTA LLC/EXECUTIVE 6/23/06 $1,000Dingell, John D (D)SNYDER, RICK
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105ARDESTA INC./PRESIDENT6/23/05 $500Its My Party Too PAC
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105 ARDESTA/PRESIDENT 10/25/04 $2,000 Schwarz, Joe (R)SNYDER, RICHARD
ANN ARBOR,MI 48108 ARDESTA/PRESIDENT 11/18/05 $1,950 Schwarz, Joe (R)SNYDER, RICHARD
Joe Schwarz (R-District 7) voting record http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Joe_Schwarz.htm
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105 ARDESTA/CEO 5/14/03 $1,000 Dingell, John D (D)SNYDER, RICHARD D
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105 ARDESTA, LLC/CE O6/23/08 $1,000 Dingell, John D (D)SNYDER, RICHARD D
John Dingel [D-M15] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400110
ANN ARBOR,MI 48105ARDESTA/CEO 10/26/06 $1,000 Its My Party Too PAC SNYDER, RICHARD MR
Its My Party Too PAC
(IMP-PAC), intended to help elect moderate pro-abort Republicans at all levels of government. IMP-PAC is allied with the other "progressive Republican" PACS
Friday, June 25, 2010
Attacks on the Electoral College Gain Momentum
[Tara Ross]
You won’t hear about it in the mainstream media, but the Electoral College is on the verge of being eliminated. One important legislative vote could occur Thursday. Two others could occur in the upcoming days and weeks.
A California-based group, National Popular Vote, is lobbying hard for a dangerous piece of anti-Electoral College legislation. My NRO article on the mechanics of the legislation is here. Five states have already approved NPV, but now three additional states are dangerously close to joining them: Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York. Another trio of state legislatures approved the scheme, but their governors vetoed the plan. These latter states remain important; a reasonable argument can be made that the gubernatorial vetoes are irrelevant.
If each of these states is counted, NPV could have as many as 169 electoral votes in favor of its plan. It needs 270. NPV has come startlingly close to success even as most Americans remain completely unaware that the presidential-election process is so close to being turned on its head. FULL STORY
You won’t hear about it in the mainstream media, but the Electoral College is on the verge of being eliminated. One important legislative vote could occur Thursday. Two others could occur in the upcoming days and weeks.
A California-based group, National Popular Vote, is lobbying hard for a dangerous piece of anti-Electoral College legislation. My NRO article on the mechanics of the legislation is here. Five states have already approved NPV, but now three additional states are dangerously close to joining them: Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York. Another trio of state legislatures approved the scheme, but their governors vetoed the plan. These latter states remain important; a reasonable argument can be made that the gubernatorial vetoes are irrelevant.
If each of these states is counted, NPV could have as many as 169 electoral votes in favor of its plan. It needs 270. NPV has come startlingly close to success even as most Americans remain completely unaware that the presidential-election process is so close to being turned on its head. FULL STORY
The Coming U.S. Real Estate Crash
Last night I listened to a debate between 4 of the Republican candidates who want to be Governor of Michigan. The majority of questions were about the economy and jobs. All candidates said the same thing, GOVERNMENT does not create jobs, people do. GOVERNMENT must get out of the way so they can. One candidate, Congressman Pete Hoekstra even said that GOVERNMENT needs to give the people "A little more FREEDOM".
I wonder what happened to those "UNALIENABLE RIGHTS" guaranteed and protected by the Constitution?
Here are two stories talking about ANOTHER Real Estate Crash about to happen. Then you should listen to the video interview with Gerald Celente below. It really doesn't matter anymore who you vote for, no one is going to stop the devastation this country is going to go through. But at least Celente has some tips on how to survive it.
Right now the United States is heading for another real estate crash. The only thing that has been holding it back was the huge bribe (called a tax credit) that the U.S. government was giving people to buy houses. Now that the tax credit has expired, there is no artificial incentive to buy homes and the real estate market has fallen through the floor. Unfortunately, there is every indication that things are going to get even worse. Read on to find out why.... FULL STORY
by Mike Larson 06-25-10
Heads up, folks! It’s time for a very important housing market update from the front lines.
More than a year ago in these cyberpages, I told you that housing was stabilizing. All my indicators pointed to an improvement in conditions — less deadweight inventory on the market … increased sales rates … stabilization in pricing.
Many housing and housing-related stocks ramped after that alert came out. Some even hit multi-month and multi-year highs! And staying short during that period would’ve killed your portfolio.
But now?
The times they are a-changing once again. The reason? The lousy economy is pulling the rug out from under housing! FULL STORY
I wonder what happened to those "UNALIENABLE RIGHTS" guaranteed and protected by the Constitution?
Here are two stories talking about ANOTHER Real Estate Crash about to happen. Then you should listen to the video interview with Gerald Celente below. It really doesn't matter anymore who you vote for, no one is going to stop the devastation this country is going to go through. But at least Celente has some tips on how to survive it.
The Coming U.S. Real Estate Crash
Right now the United States is heading for another real estate crash. The only thing that has been holding it back was the huge bribe (called a tax credit) that the U.S. government was giving people to buy houses. Now that the tax credit has expired, there is no artificial incentive to buy homes and the real estate market has fallen through the floor. Unfortunately, there is every indication that things are going to get even worse. Read on to find out why.... FULL STORY
Lousy Economy Pulling Rug Out
From Under Housing
by Mike Larson 06-25-10
Heads up, folks! It’s time for a very important housing market update from the front lines.
More than a year ago in these cyberpages, I told you that housing was stabilizing. All my indicators pointed to an improvement in conditions — less deadweight inventory on the market … increased sales rates … stabilization in pricing.
Many housing and housing-related stocks ramped after that alert came out. Some even hit multi-month and multi-year highs! And staying short during that period would’ve killed your portfolio.
But now?
The times they are a-changing once again. The reason? The lousy economy is pulling the rug out from under housing! FULL STORY
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Why I am supporting Rick Snyder for Governor
After carefully reviewing the background and track records of each candidate running for Office of Governor for the State of Michigan, I have made my choice to support Rick Snyder.
If ever Michigan voters needed to put their personal feelings and special interest aside and look for the best qualified person, it's now.
With Rick Snyder's background as a Business Tax Accountant, who would know better how to look over the state's budget and spending, and make the though decisions that will be necessary to finally bring Michigan back to a sustainable balanced budget. Something we have been missing for a very long time.
Rick's MBA degree and business experience gives him an insight on which regulations are stifling our Michigan Business, and which regulations are necessary to promote growth in the private sector of our failing economy.
I am also finding that Rick Snyder is a very hands on type of person who is Open, Transparent, and above all, Honest. I don't know one Michigan Voter who isn't saying that these are three of the most important things they are looking for.
What really helped me make my final decision to support Rick Snyder was the video below. He is not someone who is playing to any special interest group as the rest of the candidates are.
Rick Snyder tells you in his own words that "He is here to represent each and every individual in the State of Michigan. That tells me Rick Snyder has read the Michigan Constitution and understands that we are ALL to be treated equally, and that our personal UNALIENABLE RIGHTS are not to be infringed upon.
If ever Michigan voters needed to put their personal feelings and special interest aside and look for the best qualified person, it's now.
With Rick Snyder's background as a Business Tax Accountant, who would know better how to look over the state's budget and spending, and make the though decisions that will be necessary to finally bring Michigan back to a sustainable balanced budget. Something we have been missing for a very long time.
Rick's MBA degree and business experience gives him an insight on which regulations are stifling our Michigan Business, and which regulations are necessary to promote growth in the private sector of our failing economy.
I am also finding that Rick Snyder is a very hands on type of person who is Open, Transparent, and above all, Honest. I don't know one Michigan Voter who isn't saying that these are three of the most important things they are looking for.
What really helped me make my final decision to support Rick Snyder was the video below. He is not someone who is playing to any special interest group as the rest of the candidates are.
Rick Snyder tells you in his own words that "He is here to represent each and every individual in the State of Michigan. That tells me Rick Snyder has read the Michigan Constitution and understands that we are ALL to be treated equally, and that our personal UNALIENABLE RIGHTS are not to be infringed upon.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Silver, ‘Gold’s Little Brother,’ May Advance to $23
Bloomberg June 22, 2010
By Kim Kyoungwha
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- Silver may surge to as much as $23 an ounce next year, the highest price since 1980, as investors seek a cheap alternative to gold and a global economic recovery boosts industrial demand, according to Commerzbank AG.
“As with gold, silver is also considered to exhibit stabilizing characteristics when it comes to value,” Weinberg wrote in yesterday’s report. “Silver is reasonably priced compared to gold and constitutes a low-cost alternative.”
The ratio between gold and silver had risen to about 65 compared with an average of 59 over the past “several years,” the report said. “We expect this ratio to swing back, leading to potential for silver,” Weinberg said. FULL STORY
By Kim Kyoungwha
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- Silver may surge to as much as $23 an ounce next year, the highest price since 1980, as investors seek a cheap alternative to gold and a global economic recovery boosts industrial demand, according to Commerzbank AG.
‘Low-Cost Alternative’
“As with gold, silver is also considered to exhibit stabilizing characteristics when it comes to value,” Weinberg wrote in yesterday’s report. “Silver is reasonably priced compared to gold and constitutes a low-cost alternative.”
The ratio between gold and silver had risen to about 65 compared with an average of 59 over the past “several years,” the report said. “We expect this ratio to swing back, leading to potential for silver,” Weinberg said. FULL STORY
Ron Paul endorses state Rep. Amash for US House
Texas U.S. Rep. and ex-presidential candidate Ron Paul has endorsed Michigan state Rep. Justin Amash in the Republican race for western Michigan's 3rd U.S. House district.
U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, is retiring and has endorsed lawyer Steve Heacock as his successor. FULL STORY
U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, is retiring and has endorsed lawyer Steve Heacock as his successor. FULL STORY
Monday, June 21, 2010
Drowning in Grand Haven Township
This letter is in response to 3 different articles printed in the Grand Haven Tribune: #1 Friday, March 12, 2010 "3-Part Series to shed light on water," #2 Monday, April 5, 2010 "Ottawa County hopes to uncover underground water woes" and #3 Wednesday, April 14, 2010 "GHT water rates increase slightly".
This is a video of the neighbor's pump that has been pumping "Clean Ground Drinking Water" since May of 2008 and dumping down a county drian flooding out Our property along with neighborhood property's, all because he moved his house without any check and balance from the township and built his home in the water table.
Find more videos like this on Tea Party of West Michigan
I found it to be very interesting that Grand Haven City did an education series on the Lower Grand River Water Shed. What I found amusing about the whole thing is that back in 2008 I contacted just about every water conservation group there is, even the LGROW, that could lead me in the right direction about a water issue located in Grand Haven Township. With all the information coming out in the paper about "Water", I feel it is time that the citizens of Grand Haven Township along with everyone in the Lower Grand River Watershed find out what every official in Grand Haven Township, the Drain Commissioners office, your State Representative’s office, the MDEQ's office and even MDOT know about a "water problem we have right here in Grand Haven Township". What if I could show you proof that a neighbor of mine is pumping water out of the ground and dumping it into a county drain at the rate of 309 gallons per minute?
Let’s do the math on this, shall we? Just imagine 18,540 gallons an hour or 444,960 gallons per day (that is equal to the volume of an Olympic sized swimming pool) or 13,348,800.00 per month of "Clean Drinking Water" just being dumped out into a county drain, causing unnecessary flooding of neighboring roads and properties. All this started at the end of May in 2008. This water has been pumping everyday on a continual basis. Let’s do the math on a year basis: 13,348,800.00 X 12 = 160,185,600.00, per year. Come June 1st of this year it will be 2 years that this “water” has been pumped and dumped into the County Drain. 2 X 160,185,600.00 = 320,371,200.00 gallons of Pure Clean Drinking Water. Just imagine all the non-point source pollution going into the watershed from this. Not only is it causing flooding, it is compromising a main thoroughfare between the Lakeshore and Grand Rapids. What if that road gives way and someone gets killed? Then will someone listen to me and do a story on this?
Then I read that the County wants to hire someone to do a study on the "Water Woes" of Ottawa County. Would you not think that this is a "Water Woe"? Would you not think that someone would want to do something about this? Would you not call wasting 160,185,600.00 gallons of Pure Clean Drinking Water a year a “Water Woe”?
Furthermore, the Grand Haven Township Board of Trustees has raised the water rates in the township. Oh, I know they will tell you that we are behind with raising the water rates, according to the study they had done. But, my question to them is; how can they morally, or professionally, raise the "water rates" when they are all very well aware of this water issue? Wouldn't it have been a better judgment call on their part to table this increase until this "Water Issue" is settled in the circuit court? How can the Board justify an increase when they are allowing this waste to happen? I know they will come back and say that there is a permit from the MDEQ to allow this and yes there is a permit, for the outfall structure. But, there is NO permit for the "water" being pumped out of the ground, which they are aware of as well.
What about the ordinance that is being broken here everyday? I'm sure there are people in this township that have broken some kind of ordinance and received a letter telling them they did so, with a fine for doing so. If you read our Ordinance 20.102 DISORDERLY DEFINITIONS: Sec 2: It reads as follows: No persons shall conduct himself or herself in a disorderly manner in the Township of Grand Haven, Ottawa County, Michigan. For the purpose of this Ordinance, a person conducts himself or herself in a disorderly manner when he or she does any act or engages in any practice hereinafter listed, or aids or abets any person who does any such act or engages in any such practice hereinafter listed:
#5. Willfully destroy damage, deface, injure, or tamper with any PROPERTY of another.
#18. Trespass or unlawfully enter or remain on the premises of another to the annoyance or disturbance of the lawful owner or occupant thereof;
Sec 4. VOLITIONS AND PENALTIES
A violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, in the discretion of the court.
As of the date of this letter, no action has been taken against the violator of this Ordinance. I would hope that the Grand Haven Tribune finds this story to be worth the printing. I believe the residents of Grand Haven Township have the right to know what is happening in their township. This is a very well documented case. I have enclosed a few pictures for your review, and would ask that you contact me at your earliest convenience to do a full report on this story. We have had a pretty dry spring so far, but when the rains come so does more "water and flooding".
Patty Anyanwu/Thompson
Grand Haven Township
This is a video of the neighbor's pump that has been pumping "Clean Ground Drinking Water" since May of 2008 and dumping down a county drian flooding out Our property along with neighborhood property's, all because he moved his house without any check and balance from the township and built his home in the water table.
Find more videos like this on Tea Party of West Michigan
I found it to be very interesting that Grand Haven City did an education series on the Lower Grand River Water Shed. What I found amusing about the whole thing is that back in 2008 I contacted just about every water conservation group there is, even the LGROW, that could lead me in the right direction about a water issue located in Grand Haven Township. With all the information coming out in the paper about "Water", I feel it is time that the citizens of Grand Haven Township along with everyone in the Lower Grand River Watershed find out what every official in Grand Haven Township, the Drain Commissioners office, your State Representative’s office, the MDEQ's office and even MDOT know about a "water problem we have right here in Grand Haven Township". What if I could show you proof that a neighbor of mine is pumping water out of the ground and dumping it into a county drain at the rate of 309 gallons per minute?
Let’s do the math on this, shall we? Just imagine 18,540 gallons an hour or 444,960 gallons per day (that is equal to the volume of an Olympic sized swimming pool) or 13,348,800.00 per month of "Clean Drinking Water" just being dumped out into a county drain, causing unnecessary flooding of neighboring roads and properties. All this started at the end of May in 2008. This water has been pumping everyday on a continual basis. Let’s do the math on a year basis: 13,348,800.00 X 12 = 160,185,600.00, per year. Come June 1st of this year it will be 2 years that this “water” has been pumped and dumped into the County Drain. 2 X 160,185,600.00 = 320,371,200.00 gallons of Pure Clean Drinking Water. Just imagine all the non-point source pollution going into the watershed from this. Not only is it causing flooding, it is compromising a main thoroughfare between the Lakeshore and Grand Rapids. What if that road gives way and someone gets killed? Then will someone listen to me and do a story on this?
Then I read that the County wants to hire someone to do a study on the "Water Woes" of Ottawa County. Would you not think that this is a "Water Woe"? Would you not think that someone would want to do something about this? Would you not call wasting 160,185,600.00 gallons of Pure Clean Drinking Water a year a “Water Woe”?
Furthermore, the Grand Haven Township Board of Trustees has raised the water rates in the township. Oh, I know they will tell you that we are behind with raising the water rates, according to the study they had done. But, my question to them is; how can they morally, or professionally, raise the "water rates" when they are all very well aware of this water issue? Wouldn't it have been a better judgment call on their part to table this increase until this "Water Issue" is settled in the circuit court? How can the Board justify an increase when they are allowing this waste to happen? I know they will come back and say that there is a permit from the MDEQ to allow this and yes there is a permit, for the outfall structure. But, there is NO permit for the "water" being pumped out of the ground, which they are aware of as well.
What about the ordinance that is being broken here everyday? I'm sure there are people in this township that have broken some kind of ordinance and received a letter telling them they did so, with a fine for doing so. If you read our Ordinance 20.102 DISORDERLY DEFINITIONS: Sec 2: It reads as follows: No persons shall conduct himself or herself in a disorderly manner in the Township of Grand Haven, Ottawa County, Michigan. For the purpose of this Ordinance, a person conducts himself or herself in a disorderly manner when he or she does any act or engages in any practice hereinafter listed, or aids or abets any person who does any such act or engages in any such practice hereinafter listed:
#5. Willfully destroy damage, deface, injure, or tamper with any PROPERTY of another.
#18. Trespass or unlawfully enter or remain on the premises of another to the annoyance or disturbance of the lawful owner or occupant thereof;
Sec 4. VOLITIONS AND PENALTIES
A violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, in the discretion of the court.
As of the date of this letter, no action has been taken against the violator of this Ordinance. I would hope that the Grand Haven Tribune finds this story to be worth the printing. I believe the residents of Grand Haven Township have the right to know what is happening in their township. This is a very well documented case. I have enclosed a few pictures for your review, and would ask that you contact me at your earliest convenience to do a full report on this story. We have had a pretty dry spring so far, but when the rains come so does more "water and flooding".
Patty Anyanwu/Thompson
Grand Haven Township
Great jobs apartheid: Public sector staff spend nine fewer years at work over lifetime than private employees AND earn 30% more
This is what we are also facing here in the United States. Let's just look at the IRS. Starting pay is $60.000 to over $100,000, Health Care and Pension. Not Bad.
By JAMES CHAPMAN
Public sector employees work nine years less than their private sector counterparts but are paid 30 per cent more, a bombshell report reveals today.
Extraordinary research tells a tale of two Britains - a state sector awash with taxpayers' cash while the rest of the economy struggles to stay afloat.
Public sector workers enjoy better pay than those in the private sector, as well as better pensions, shorter hours, and earlier retirement. FULL STORY
How about City of Muskegon employees? Well, these union employees don't do so bad either. In fact, because of their union contracts, we have to go on a waiting list and if were lucky, they will come trim the tree in front of your house TWO years later. Now lets not quibble about the fact that you don't want the big Maple tree there, because some city employee (not an elected official) decided that it would be neat to have the canopy effect. So why would you not want these big messy trees that every couple of years, the roots upheave the sidewalk which the CITY sends you the TAX bill to come and repair?
We get the privilege of taking care of the grass between the road and sidewalk, but we are not allowed to touch the trees. If we were, then we wouldn't need so many CITY employees to support with a better lifestyle than we enjoy, and maybe, just maybe, were denying some individual of making a living by contracting with the homeowner to do the same thing we pay LAZY CITY EMPLOYEES to do.
Yes, I said LAZY CITY EMPLOYEES. We have a little island that we used to cut because it would be knee high before these well paid Muskegon City Employees got around to do it. But that guy who rids around the neighborhood in the Muskegon EPA car will send you a letter if your grass gets over 12 inches, threatening to send LAZY CITY EMPLOYEES to come cut your postage stamp size lot and charge you $80 for it.
I wonder when the people in the City of Muskegon will wake up and stop supporting the Democrats here who come right out of our CITY EMPLOYEE POOL.
By JAMES CHAPMAN
Public sector employees work nine years less than their private sector counterparts but are paid 30 per cent more, a bombshell report reveals today.
Extraordinary research tells a tale of two Britains - a state sector awash with taxpayers' cash while the rest of the economy struggles to stay afloat.
Public sector workers enjoy better pay than those in the private sector, as well as better pensions, shorter hours, and earlier retirement. FULL STORY
How about City of Muskegon employees? Well, these union employees don't do so bad either. In fact, because of their union contracts, we have to go on a waiting list and if were lucky, they will come trim the tree in front of your house TWO years later. Now lets not quibble about the fact that you don't want the big Maple tree there, because some city employee (not an elected official) decided that it would be neat to have the canopy effect. So why would you not want these big messy trees that every couple of years, the roots upheave the sidewalk which the CITY sends you the TAX bill to come and repair?
We get the privilege of taking care of the grass between the road and sidewalk, but we are not allowed to touch the trees. If we were, then we wouldn't need so many CITY employees to support with a better lifestyle than we enjoy, and maybe, just maybe, were denying some individual of making a living by contracting with the homeowner to do the same thing we pay LAZY CITY EMPLOYEES to do.
Yes, I said LAZY CITY EMPLOYEES. We have a little island that we used to cut because it would be knee high before these well paid Muskegon City Employees got around to do it. But that guy who rids around the neighborhood in the Muskegon EPA car will send you a letter if your grass gets over 12 inches, threatening to send LAZY CITY EMPLOYEES to come cut your postage stamp size lot and charge you $80 for it.
I wonder when the people in the City of Muskegon will wake up and stop supporting the Democrats here who come right out of our CITY EMPLOYEE POOL.
Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax
This is exactly what they did when they passed Social Security. It was to be a voluntary insurance policy while campaigning for it, but after it was passed, the courts declared it a TAX. So here we go again with LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES.
By Philip Klein on 6.17.10 @ 2:04PM
In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.
Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes. FULL STORY
Newlywed couple: Officer blocked us from ER during bride's stroke
It's getting to be standard procedure for police to act like idiots and get away with it.
By Callie Starnes & WRCB Staff
CHATTANOOGA (WRCB) – A patient, believed to be having a stroke, says an officer with the Chattanooga Police Department blocked her husband from taking her to the emergency room at Erlanger Wednesday night.
Aline Wright is a cancer survivor, amputee and a newlywed. Wednesday night she began to show signs she was having a stroke.
According to Aline, the officer caught up with the couple as they were attempting to enter the emergency room at Erlanger Medical Center. Aline says her husband was carrying her in his arms because she could not walk. According to Aline, the officer blocked the entrance and demanded answers for running the red lights.
"He picks me up in his arms and the officer continues to block the way into the emergency room," said Aline.
"He's standing between Jesse and I, and the emergency room doors."
Aline says eventually the officer allowed them to enter the hospital, but says he didn't stop there. FULL STORY
Cops Kill Father-to-Be in Botched Marijuana Raid
It's being said more and more, this war on drugs needs to end.
"Narcotics warrants are high risk warrants," said Capt. Neville. The question is for whom, and the answer is obvious: The people on the receiving end of them. The police? Not so much, as we have shown in our annual surveys of police casualties in the drug war. FULL STORY
Las Vegas Narc Serving Marijuana Search Warrant Kills Father-to-Be In His Own Bathroom
by Phillip Smith"Narcotics warrants are high risk warrants," said Capt. Neville. The question is for whom, and the answer is obvious: The people on the receiving end of them. The police? Not so much, as we have shown in our annual surveys of police casualties in the drug war. FULL STORY
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Time for Survival Strategies Jun 15, 2010
Gerald Celente talks with Lew Rockwell about what’s ahead for the economy, as social unrest grows around the world.
US unemployment claims on the rise
The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits in the US has jumped after three previous declines, a sign layoffs have not slowed. FULL STORY
US unemployment claims on the rise
The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits in the US has jumped after three previous declines, a sign layoffs have not slowed. FULL STORY
Thursday, June 17, 2010
EAG Insider: Superintendent bashing, Truth-o-meter
June 15, 2010
“No confidence” votes are nothing more than MEA tantrums
Superintendents attacked for not giving unions all they want
The Michigan Education Association has been screaming a lot lately about “teacher bashing.”
What about superintendent bashing?
By that, we mean the MEA’s dirty little habit of trying to smear the reputations of K-12 school superintendents, just because the union is not getting its way at the contract bargaining table.
The most recent example is in the Big Rapids district, where the teachers recently adopted a resolution of “no confidence” in Superintendent Tom Langdon, a week after rejecting a tentative contract that made sense for the cash-strapped district.
According to several sources, there was no reason for the union to attack Langdon. They say he’s done an outstanding job from an academic standpoint, and is doing his best to watch out for school finances and employee interests during negotiations with the union.
For the record, the Big Rapids district has been without a teachers contract since August. After going though the arbitration process, the two sides reached a tentative agreement earlier this year on a contact that would have installed sensible controls on insurance and salary costs for the cash-strapped district.
That means the union could keep getting expensive MESSA insurance coverage, and the school would only pay up to its self-imposed cap. The leftover costs would have been picked up by teachers.
But Big Rapids teachers have never been forced to help pay for their own insurance, and they apparently don’t care to start now. FULL STORY
“No confidence” votes are nothing more than MEA tantrums
Superintendents attacked for not giving unions all they want
The Michigan Education Association has been screaming a lot lately about “teacher bashing.”
What about superintendent bashing?
By that, we mean the MEA’s dirty little habit of trying to smear the reputations of K-12 school superintendents, just because the union is not getting its way at the contract bargaining table.
The most recent example is in the Big Rapids district, where the teachers recently adopted a resolution of “no confidence” in Superintendent Tom Langdon, a week after rejecting a tentative contract that made sense for the cash-strapped district.
According to several sources, there was no reason for the union to attack Langdon. They say he’s done an outstanding job from an academic standpoint, and is doing his best to watch out for school finances and employee interests during negotiations with the union.
FULL GOODY BAG
For the record, the Big Rapids district has been without a teachers contract since August. After going though the arbitration process, the two sides reached a tentative agreement earlier this year on a contact that would have installed sensible controls on insurance and salary costs for the cash-strapped district.
That means the union could keep getting expensive MESSA insurance coverage, and the school would only pay up to its self-imposed cap. The leftover costs would have been picked up by teachers.
But Big Rapids teachers have never been forced to help pay for their own insurance, and they apparently don’t care to start now. FULL STORY
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Tax Hikes Kill Jobs, Tax Cuts Create Them
Fourteen percent of Michigan' labor force is unemployed. Thousands of others are underemployed or fear for their jobs. Yet a proposal by Gov. Jennifer Granholm for a net tax increase of $554 million in fiscal year 2011 would only exacerbate the problem, causing the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs in the first year alone, according to an economic modeling tool employed by Mackinac Center analysts. Just as bad, real disposable income would fall by $1.9 billion statewide. Wages would drop by more than $1,400 per person.
The tax increase, proposed last February, would raise more than $940 million in new revenues through 2014, according to the House Fiscal Agency. Offsetting provisions to eliminate the hated Michigan Business Tax surcharge and provide modest cuts in the Gross Receipts Tax would limit job losses to "just" 13,500 through 2014, according to the STAMP model (State Tax Analysis Modeling Program) done in conjunction with tax experts at the Beacon Hill Institute in Boston. This is the wrong tack to take with a state that has experienced a lost decade of economic growth. Instead, Michigan's Legislature should repudiate this proposal and immediately cut both state spending and taxes. FULL STORY
Gather Your Armies
NOTICE: This is not an endorsement by me for Rick Barber. I posted this because I really liked the ad. However, Rick Barber is a Fair Tax supporter, so people, be careful who you vote for.
U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan
By JAMES RISEN
Published: June 13, 2010
WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said. FULL STORY
Published: June 13, 2010
WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said. FULL STORY
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Dear Patriots and Fellow Election Integrity Advocates,
We (VoteRescue in Austin, Texas) have been tracking Bob Schulz's National Clean Elections Lawsuit (NCEL) since its inception and want to applaud each of you for the courage to be the first plaintiffs in this very important court case which challenges secret vote counting with electronic voting machines and calls it what it is: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
As most of you are aware, Motions to Dismiss the NCEL case in 49 states occurred awhile ago; but some of you may NOT be aware that the one state where the case is moving forward is NEW YORK, and a JURY TRIAL is expected to occur there in early 2011. A new website has been created for NCEL and the link is here: http://www.nationalcleanelections.com/ which gives all pertinent information including background, court documents on the case, a DONATE button, and even has a blog capability for interested parties.
Bob has been moving forward with this case at great personal expense of his time and finances; he has already paid extensively for various court-related expenses and there will be more to come before it's all over. HE NEEDS OUR HELP!
Therefore we are reaching out to you on his behalf to request any financial assistance you could afford at this time: $10, $25, $50, $100, or more...whatever your budget might allow. Use the "DONATE" button on the website to help Bob finish the job that you all started together: Reclaiming elections back from corporations, and into the hands of citizens, by eliminating electronic voting and returning to hand-counted paper ballot elections.
(By the way, the German equivalent of our Supreme Court found electronic to be unconstitutional in that country last year - because they said "It should take no special technical knowledge for a voter to understand how their vote was counted." Let's help Bob bring this same critical lesson to the U.S.!)
We hope you'll DONATE TODAY!
Thanks so very much!
As most of you are aware, Motions to Dismiss the NCEL case in 49 states occurred awhile ago; but some of you may NOT be aware that the one state where the case is moving forward is NEW YORK, and a JURY TRIAL is expected to occur there in early 2011. A new website has been created for NCEL and the link is here: http://www.nationalcleanelections.com/ which gives all pertinent information including background, court documents on the case, a DONATE button, and even has a blog capability for interested parties.
Bob has been moving forward with this case at great personal expense of his time and finances; he has already paid extensively for various court-related expenses and there will be more to come before it's all over. HE NEEDS OUR HELP!
Therefore we are reaching out to you on his behalf to request any financial assistance you could afford at this time: $10, $25, $50, $100, or more...whatever your budget might allow. Use the "DONATE" button on the website to help Bob finish the job that you all started together: Reclaiming elections back from corporations, and into the hands of citizens, by eliminating electronic voting and returning to hand-counted paper ballot elections.
(By the way, the German equivalent of our Supreme Court found electronic to be unconstitutional in that country last year - because they said "It should take no special technical knowledge for a voter to understand how their vote was counted." Let's help Bob bring this same critical lesson to the U.S.!)
We hope you'll DONATE TODAY!
Thanks so very much!
Vickie Karp - Co-Director, VoteRescue(.org)
Karen Renick - Director & Founder, VoteRescue(.org)
Karen Renick - Director & Founder, VoteRescue(.org)
Saturday, June 12, 2010
LTC Terry Lakin Speaks Out On His Court Martial & Defense Denial In A New Video.
LTC Terry Lakin has tried in vain to get the same verification from our President that he has been asked to provide countless times in his career, for many jobs, and to obtain a security clearance for the trusted positions he has held within the U.S. Armed Forces.
He has put his life on the line all over the world and served with honor, and will be glad to do so again, but only under a Commander in Chief he knows is legally eligible to lead.
LTC Lakin has questioned the President's "natural born" status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1. After months of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President's Constitutional eligibility. Source.
He has put his life on the line all over the world and served with honor, and will be glad to do so again, but only under a Commander in Chief he knows is legally eligible to lead.
LTC Lakin has questioned the President's "natural born" status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1. After months of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President's Constitutional eligibility. Source.
Can a Tax Be 'Fair'?
By Laurence M. Vance
Representative John Linder (R-GA), one of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's top lieutenants, has announced that he is retiring and will not seek reelection. First elected to Congress in 1992, and representing Georgia's seventh congressional district since 2003, Linder's claim to fame is for continually introducing legislation that never passes.
Linder is the primary sponsor in Congress of the FairTax, a progressive national retail sales tax. The FairTax is the brainchild of three businessmen concerned about the crippling effects on the economy of the current federal tax code. After adopting the name "FairTax" for their tax-reform plan, they formed Americans for Fair Taxation in 1997 and enlisted Representative Linder to introduce FairTax legislation in Congress. Linder first sponsored the "Fair Tax Act" in the House in July of 1999, and has reintroduced a FairTax bill at the beginning of every term of Congress since then.
The current incarnation of the FairTax is H.R. 25, the "Fair Tax Act of 2009." This bill was introduced on January 6, 2009, and has 61 cosponsors, including one Democrat, David Boren of Oklahoma. Notably absent from the list of cosponsors is Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), continually acknowledged as the taxpayers' best friend because of his consistent voting record against unconstitutional spending. The FairTax bill is currently languishing in the House Committee on Ways and Means (as it does each time it is introduced). A companion bill was introduced in the Senate (S. 296) on January 22, 2009, by Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), but it only has 4 cosponsors, all Republicans. It is sitting in the Senate Committee on Finance.
Former Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Thomas Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter have been supporters of the FairTax. The most vocal proponent of the FairTax outside of political circles is radio talk-show host Neal Boortz. He is the author, with Congressman Linder, of The FairTax Book (Regan Books, 2005) and a sequel, FairTax: The Truth, Answering the Critics (Harper, 2008).
The FairTax is a consumption tax in the form of a national retail sales tax on all services and the final sale of all new goods. All services, except tuition, would be subject to the FairTax -- from heart surgeries and funeral services to haircuts and manicures. And although the FairTax would only be levied on the final sale of new goods, nothing is exempt -- not food, not prescription drugs, not new cars, not even new construction (what would the FairTax be on a skyscraper?). All Internet purchases of new goods would also be taxable.
In exchange for these new taxes, there would no longer be -- on the federal level -- personal income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, unemployment tax, alternative minimum tax, gift tax, or estate tax. However, without an income tax, all tax deductions, exemptions, and credits would also be eliminated. No more child care credit, education credits, earned income credit, personal exemptions, home mortgage interest deduction, etc. The FairTax would not do away with other federal taxes like tariffs, excise taxes, and special taxes on things like airline tickets. State and local income, property, and sales taxes would be unaffected as well.
The reason for such a radical tax-reform proposal is obvious: the intrusive, wealth-destroying, income redistributing, social engineering monstrosity known as the U.S. tax code. With its progressive brackets that punish success, refundable tax credits that allow some Americans to receive a refund after paying no taxes, and arcane rules and schedules that confound not only seasoned tax preparers, but IRS employees, the tax code in the 20 volumes of Title 26, "Internal Revenue," of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is an abomination.
The appeal of the FairTax should be evident as well: no more record keeping, no more taxes withheld from paychecks, no more compliance costs, no more tax forms, no more IRS audits of individuals, no more lines at the post office on April 15th.
But that's not all. Proponents of the FairTax also tout some additional benefits it is supposed to bring. Congressman Linder believes that under the FairTax we would see an increase in GDP, exports, real investment, real wages, economic growth, and economic efficiency. Neal Boortz maintains that the FairTax would result in the creation of millions of new jobs, an increase in foreign investment in the United States, and be a financial bonanza for the poor and middle class. Both claim that prices would decline and interest rates -- which are already at historic lows -- would drop by 30 percent.
These grandiose claims for the FairTax notwithstanding, there is no question that the beauty of the FairTax is its simplicity. This beauty, however, is only skin deep. The FairTax promises a utopia that is simply too good to be true. The cure offered by the FairTax may even be worse than the diseased federal tax code it is designed to replace.
The price of the FairTax's simplicity is a 30 percent national sales tax on all new goods and services in addition to the state and local sales taxes already levied in most states and many counties and cities. And it is not just individuals who would be responsible for paying the tax: State and local governments would, unlike now, be required to pay taxes to the federal government on the goods they purchase, and the federal government would pay taxes to itself.
The FairTax rate is usually given by its proponents as 23 percent, with the caveat that the rate is figured inclusively (the tax is included in the price of the product) rather than exclusively (the tax is added to the price of the product) like it is computed in every state that assesses a sales tax.
Obviously, it is much easier to sell a national sales tax to the American people if the rate is 23 percent instead of 30 percent. But whether one thinks the rate is 23 or 30 percent, the fact remains that it will cost Americans an extra 30 cents on the dollar to purchase any new good or service under the FairTax. Some economists don't think that either of these rates would be high enough to fund the government at its current level. And as a practical matter, as bad as the current system is, I don't think the American people are ready to pay an additional 30 percent sales tax on their purchase of a $30,000 new car on top of the state and local sales tax that they already pay.
Although it seems as though the exchange of the income tax for the FairTax would lead to higher prices on all new goods and services because of the new sales tax, FairTax proponents claim that the removal of embedded taxes would result in the prices of goods and services falling by enough to offset the amount of the sales tax imposed. Now, it is true that the current price of consumer goods includes embedded taxes like corporate income taxes and the employer share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, but the amount by which it is claimed that prices would fall under a FairTax system has been grossly exaggerated. What we know for certain is that under the FairTax retail prices will increase by 30 percent; what we don't know is how much prices will decrease after their embedded costs are removed.
But not only will the lower prices on goods and services help consumers to pay their new federal sales tax, the FairTax also includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities. This "prebate" would be based on family size and the government poverty level. There would be no means test; every household -- including the "rich" -- would receive a prebate. And as Boortz mentioned in his first book on the FairTax, for some households the amount of the prebate might even be more than the sales tax paid. Thus, although everyone would pay the same rate under the FairTax, the end result would be that some Americans would pay no taxes at all, some would have most of their taxes offset, and some would get more money back than they paid in taxes. This makes the FairTax an income redistribution scheme under the guise of tax reform.
There are three fundamental problems with the FairTax: the arbitrary concept of fairness, revenue neutrality, and the nature of taxation.
Maintaining that the FairTax is a "fair" tax system, or one that is "fairer" than our current system, is highly subjective. Boortz himself even acknowledges this in his most recent book on the FairTax: "Whether a tax system is 'fair' is a complicated economic and philosophical question, one that inevitably involves oversimplification and subjective judgment." Some Americans think it is fair that other Americans pay for their health care. Some Americans think it is fair that other Americans subsidize their housing. Some Americans think it is fair that the top 50 percent of wage earners pay 97 percent of the taxes. Why should it be considered fair for the federal government to confiscate 23 or 30 percent of the value of every new good or service? The late economist Murray Rothbard, although he died before John Linder introduced the first FairTax bill in Congress, said it best: "There can be no such thing as 'fairness in taxation.' Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a 'fair tax' is therefore every bit as absurd as that of 'fair theft.'"
The concept of "revenue neutrality" is one that all advocates of liberty and less government should be suspicious of. The FairTax, like all other current tax reform plans, is revenue neutral. It merely allows the federal government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens more efficiently. The problem with revenue-neutral tax-reform plans is that every federal agency, every federal program, every pound of federal pork -- would be funded exactly as it is now. As Boortz likewise says in his newest book: "The goal of the FairTax movement is not to strangle the life out of government by depriving it of needed revenue." The FairTax merely shifts the debate from how much wealth the federal government confiscates to the manner in which it is confiscated. Obama's trillion-dollar budgets, like Bush's trillion-dollar budgets, shouldn't be funded by replacing one tax with another -- they shouldn't be funded at all.
The root of the problem is clearly taxation itself, not the tax code. Liberals are not opposed to taxes on principle, and have no problem using the tax code for their various social engineering and income redistribution schemes. Conservatives are generally not opposed to taxes on principle either, as long as they are used in the right way -- to fund U.S. military adventures around the world, anything related to law enforcement or homeland security, faith-based welfare programs, educational vouchers, abstinence-education programs, and the war on drugs. Yes, the tax code is too complex, too intrusive, too long, too full of loopholes, and too progressive. But if rates are low enough, then it really doesn't matter how taxes are collected. The FairTax perpetuates the fallacy that the government has a right to confiscate a percentage of the value of each new good sold and every service rendered. This is no different than claiming that the government has a right to the portion of each American's income that it takes under the current system. As Rothbard explains:
It's time to retire the FairTax. Although on the surface it sounds like a workable solution to the problem that is the U.S. tax code, it promises a utopia that it cannot deliver. The FairTax creates new taxes, new taxpayers, and new tax collectors, makes it easier for the federal government to raise taxes, institutes universal welfare with its prebate check, has unknown and potential huge transition costs, could saddle us with a sales tax and a reconstituted income tax, and has a stated rate that is too low to achieve revenue neutrality, a problematic concept in itself. The federal government has an insatiable lust for Americans' money to maintain the welfare/warfare state. All revenue-neutral tax-reform plans allow Congress to maintain its spending orgy while appearing to make taxes "fairer." The FairTax -- as acknowledged by Boortz and Linder -- would merely change the way taxes are collected. And not only is it not an incremental step toward lower taxes or tax rates, it contributes nothing toward returning the size, scope, and cost of the federal government to its proper constitutional authority. As Congressman Ron Paul has said: "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."
Representative John Linder (R-GA), one of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's top lieutenants, has announced that he is retiring and will not seek reelection. First elected to Congress in 1992, and representing Georgia's seventh congressional district since 2003, Linder's claim to fame is for continually introducing legislation that never passes.
Linder is the primary sponsor in Congress of the FairTax, a progressive national retail sales tax. The FairTax is the brainchild of three businessmen concerned about the crippling effects on the economy of the current federal tax code. After adopting the name "FairTax" for their tax-reform plan, they formed Americans for Fair Taxation in 1997 and enlisted Representative Linder to introduce FairTax legislation in Congress. Linder first sponsored the "Fair Tax Act" in the House in July of 1999, and has reintroduced a FairTax bill at the beginning of every term of Congress since then.
The current incarnation of the FairTax is H.R. 25, the "Fair Tax Act of 2009." This bill was introduced on January 6, 2009, and has 61 cosponsors, including one Democrat, David Boren of Oklahoma. Notably absent from the list of cosponsors is Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), continually acknowledged as the taxpayers' best friend because of his consistent voting record against unconstitutional spending. The FairTax bill is currently languishing in the House Committee on Ways and Means (as it does each time it is introduced). A companion bill was introduced in the Senate (S. 296) on January 22, 2009, by Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), but it only has 4 cosponsors, all Republicans. It is sitting in the Senate Committee on Finance.
Former Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Thomas Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter have been supporters of the FairTax. The most vocal proponent of the FairTax outside of political circles is radio talk-show host Neal Boortz. He is the author, with Congressman Linder, of The FairTax Book (Regan Books, 2005) and a sequel, FairTax: The Truth, Answering the Critics (Harper, 2008).
The FairTax is a consumption tax in the form of a national retail sales tax on all services and the final sale of all new goods. All services, except tuition, would be subject to the FairTax -- from heart surgeries and funeral services to haircuts and manicures. And although the FairTax would only be levied on the final sale of new goods, nothing is exempt -- not food, not prescription drugs, not new cars, not even new construction (what would the FairTax be on a skyscraper?). All Internet purchases of new goods would also be taxable.
In exchange for these new taxes, there would no longer be -- on the federal level -- personal income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, unemployment tax, alternative minimum tax, gift tax, or estate tax. However, without an income tax, all tax deductions, exemptions, and credits would also be eliminated. No more child care credit, education credits, earned income credit, personal exemptions, home mortgage interest deduction, etc. The FairTax would not do away with other federal taxes like tariffs, excise taxes, and special taxes on things like airline tickets. State and local income, property, and sales taxes would be unaffected as well.
The reason for such a radical tax-reform proposal is obvious: the intrusive, wealth-destroying, income redistributing, social engineering monstrosity known as the U.S. tax code. With its progressive brackets that punish success, refundable tax credits that allow some Americans to receive a refund after paying no taxes, and arcane rules and schedules that confound not only seasoned tax preparers, but IRS employees, the tax code in the 20 volumes of Title 26, "Internal Revenue," of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is an abomination.
The appeal of the FairTax should be evident as well: no more record keeping, no more taxes withheld from paychecks, no more compliance costs, no more tax forms, no more IRS audits of individuals, no more lines at the post office on April 15th.
But that's not all. Proponents of the FairTax also tout some additional benefits it is supposed to bring. Congressman Linder believes that under the FairTax we would see an increase in GDP, exports, real investment, real wages, economic growth, and economic efficiency. Neal Boortz maintains that the FairTax would result in the creation of millions of new jobs, an increase in foreign investment in the United States, and be a financial bonanza for the poor and middle class. Both claim that prices would decline and interest rates -- which are already at historic lows -- would drop by 30 percent.
These grandiose claims for the FairTax notwithstanding, there is no question that the beauty of the FairTax is its simplicity. This beauty, however, is only skin deep. The FairTax promises a utopia that is simply too good to be true. The cure offered by the FairTax may even be worse than the diseased federal tax code it is designed to replace.
The price of the FairTax's simplicity is a 30 percent national sales tax on all new goods and services in addition to the state and local sales taxes already levied in most states and many counties and cities. And it is not just individuals who would be responsible for paying the tax: State and local governments would, unlike now, be required to pay taxes to the federal government on the goods they purchase, and the federal government would pay taxes to itself.
The FairTax rate is usually given by its proponents as 23 percent, with the caveat that the rate is figured inclusively (the tax is included in the price of the product) rather than exclusively (the tax is added to the price of the product) like it is computed in every state that assesses a sales tax.
Obviously, it is much easier to sell a national sales tax to the American people if the rate is 23 percent instead of 30 percent. But whether one thinks the rate is 23 or 30 percent, the fact remains that it will cost Americans an extra 30 cents on the dollar to purchase any new good or service under the FairTax. Some economists don't think that either of these rates would be high enough to fund the government at its current level. And as a practical matter, as bad as the current system is, I don't think the American people are ready to pay an additional 30 percent sales tax on their purchase of a $30,000 new car on top of the state and local sales tax that they already pay.
Although it seems as though the exchange of the income tax for the FairTax would lead to higher prices on all new goods and services because of the new sales tax, FairTax proponents claim that the removal of embedded taxes would result in the prices of goods and services falling by enough to offset the amount of the sales tax imposed. Now, it is true that the current price of consumer goods includes embedded taxes like corporate income taxes and the employer share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, but the amount by which it is claimed that prices would fall under a FairTax system has been grossly exaggerated. What we know for certain is that under the FairTax retail prices will increase by 30 percent; what we don't know is how much prices will decrease after their embedded costs are removed.
But not only will the lower prices on goods and services help consumers to pay their new federal sales tax, the FairTax also includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities. This "prebate" would be based on family size and the government poverty level. There would be no means test; every household -- including the "rich" -- would receive a prebate. And as Boortz mentioned in his first book on the FairTax, for some households the amount of the prebate might even be more than the sales tax paid. Thus, although everyone would pay the same rate under the FairTax, the end result would be that some Americans would pay no taxes at all, some would have most of their taxes offset, and some would get more money back than they paid in taxes. This makes the FairTax an income redistribution scheme under the guise of tax reform.
There are three fundamental problems with the FairTax: the arbitrary concept of fairness, revenue neutrality, and the nature of taxation.
Maintaining that the FairTax is a "fair" tax system, or one that is "fairer" than our current system, is highly subjective. Boortz himself even acknowledges this in his most recent book on the FairTax: "Whether a tax system is 'fair' is a complicated economic and philosophical question, one that inevitably involves oversimplification and subjective judgment." Some Americans think it is fair that other Americans pay for their health care. Some Americans think it is fair that other Americans subsidize their housing. Some Americans think it is fair that the top 50 percent of wage earners pay 97 percent of the taxes. Why should it be considered fair for the federal government to confiscate 23 or 30 percent of the value of every new good or service? The late economist Murray Rothbard, although he died before John Linder introduced the first FairTax bill in Congress, said it best: "There can be no such thing as 'fairness in taxation.' Taxation is nothing but organized theft, and the concept of a 'fair tax' is therefore every bit as absurd as that of 'fair theft.'"
The concept of "revenue neutrality" is one that all advocates of liberty and less government should be suspicious of. The FairTax, like all other current tax reform plans, is revenue neutral. It merely allows the federal government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens more efficiently. The problem with revenue-neutral tax-reform plans is that every federal agency, every federal program, every pound of federal pork -- would be funded exactly as it is now. As Boortz likewise says in his newest book: "The goal of the FairTax movement is not to strangle the life out of government by depriving it of needed revenue." The FairTax merely shifts the debate from how much wealth the federal government confiscates to the manner in which it is confiscated. Obama's trillion-dollar budgets, like Bush's trillion-dollar budgets, shouldn't be funded by replacing one tax with another -- they shouldn't be funded at all.
The root of the problem is clearly taxation itself, not the tax code. Liberals are not opposed to taxes on principle, and have no problem using the tax code for their various social engineering and income redistribution schemes. Conservatives are generally not opposed to taxes on principle either, as long as they are used in the right way -- to fund U.S. military adventures around the world, anything related to law enforcement or homeland security, faith-based welfare programs, educational vouchers, abstinence-education programs, and the war on drugs. Yes, the tax code is too complex, too intrusive, too long, too full of loopholes, and too progressive. But if rates are low enough, then it really doesn't matter how taxes are collected. The FairTax perpetuates the fallacy that the government has a right to confiscate a percentage of the value of each new good sold and every service rendered. This is no different than claiming that the government has a right to the portion of each American's income that it takes under the current system. As Rothbard explains:
The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.
It's time to retire the FairTax. Although on the surface it sounds like a workable solution to the problem that is the U.S. tax code, it promises a utopia that it cannot deliver. The FairTax creates new taxes, new taxpayers, and new tax collectors, makes it easier for the federal government to raise taxes, institutes universal welfare with its prebate check, has unknown and potential huge transition costs, could saddle us with a sales tax and a reconstituted income tax, and has a stated rate that is too low to achieve revenue neutrality, a problematic concept in itself. The federal government has an insatiable lust for Americans' money to maintain the welfare/warfare state. All revenue-neutral tax-reform plans allow Congress to maintain its spending orgy while appearing to make taxes "fairer." The FairTax -- as acknowledged by Boortz and Linder -- would merely change the way taxes are collected. And not only is it not an incremental step toward lower taxes or tax rates, it contributes nothing toward returning the size, scope, and cost of the federal government to its proper constitutional authority. As Congressman Ron Paul has said: "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."
Friday, June 11, 2010
US Liquidity Crisis Coming in 2 Years – Unless…
Thank You to Muskegon Pundit for bringing this article about Mad Money Cramer to my attention.
Cramer’s been known to rail against elected officials. As a matter of fact, this whole week has been dedicated to helping viewers sidestep the damage caused by meddlesome governments. But every once in a while he’s forms a Vulcan mind meld of sorts with a politician over an issue that’s important to both of them.
On Thursday, it happened again. Cramer desperately wants the US government to sell $2 trillion worth of 30-year Treasurys to help this country avert a liquidity crisis. And Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., agrees with him.
Put this together with what Mike Larson and Martin D. Weiss have been writing about and predicting for the past year.
When Greece’s markets first started cracking wide open, a lot of claptrap spewed forth from Wall Street. The general consensus:
• The problems in Athens would stay bottled up in Athens.
• They would remain “contained.”
• They didn’t mean anything for larger economies, including the rest of Europe, the U.K., or the U.S.
Me? I told you the exact opposite …
I said the implosion in Greece’s stock and interest rate markets — stemming from concerns about that country’s massive debt and deficit problems — were a huge red flag. They foretold a collapse in other sovereign debt markets, with collateral damage in currencies and equities.
Lo and behold, markets are now weakening worldwide. And this week, the contagion spread to the U.K. The British pound got hammered, while the FTSE 100 Index rolled over, amid concern the U.K. would be the next domino to fall!
What It Means to You …
The U.S. has still not suffered the consequences of its profligacy. Our bond market is hanging in there, while our interest rates haven’t surged … yet. But I still believe it’s only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, while our bond market is temporarily ignoring these problems, the stock market sure isn’t. The Dow plunged more than 320 points last Friday and another 115 points on Monday before experiencing a minor dead cat bounce.
My big picture view?
It looks like the easy money, “bought and paid for” rally is coming to an end. Investors are waking up to the fact that governments can’t keep borrowing and spending forever without torpedoing their own balance sheets. FULL STORY
I always like to try and connect the dots by using all points of view and putting these articles together so that you the reader can see the whole picture before making important decisions in your life.
For the past two years, I have been following Gerald Celente's Trends Journal. Celente has been so accurate in his predictions, I believe that anyone who doesn't at least make an effort to listen to his interviews and take head to what Celente has to say, deserves whatever unfortunate downfall they may encounter.
Gerald Celente has a solid track record. He has predicted everything from the 1987 stock market crash and the demise of the Soviet Union to green marketing and corporate downsizing. — The Detroit News
There’s not a better trend forecaster than Gerald Celente. The man knows what he’s talking about. — CNBC
When CNN wants to know about the Top Trends, we ask Gerald Celente. — CNN Headline News
Cramer’s been known to rail against elected officials. As a matter of fact, this whole week has been dedicated to helping viewers sidestep the damage caused by meddlesome governments. But every once in a while he’s forms a Vulcan mind meld of sorts with a politician over an issue that’s important to both of them.
On Thursday, it happened again. Cramer desperately wants the US government to sell $2 trillion worth of 30-year Treasurys to help this country avert a liquidity crisis. And Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., agrees with him.
Put this together with what Mike Larson and Martin D. Weiss have been writing about and predicting for the past year.
Debt Facade Cracking in U.K. as Sovereign Contagion Spreads
by Mike Larson 06-11-10When Greece’s markets first started cracking wide open, a lot of claptrap spewed forth from Wall Street. The general consensus:
• The problems in Athens would stay bottled up in Athens.
• They would remain “contained.”
• They didn’t mean anything for larger economies, including the rest of Europe, the U.K., or the U.S.
Me? I told you the exact opposite …
I said the implosion in Greece’s stock and interest rate markets — stemming from concerns about that country’s massive debt and deficit problems — were a huge red flag. They foretold a collapse in other sovereign debt markets, with collateral damage in currencies and equities.
Lo and behold, markets are now weakening worldwide. And this week, the contagion spread to the U.K. The British pound got hammered, while the FTSE 100 Index rolled over, amid concern the U.K. would be the next domino to fall!
What It Means to You …
The U.S. has still not suffered the consequences of its profligacy. Our bond market is hanging in there, while our interest rates haven’t surged … yet. But I still believe it’s only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, while our bond market is temporarily ignoring these problems, the stock market sure isn’t. The Dow plunged more than 320 points last Friday and another 115 points on Monday before experiencing a minor dead cat bounce.
My big picture view?
It looks like the easy money, “bought and paid for” rally is coming to an end. Investors are waking up to the fact that governments can’t keep borrowing and spending forever without torpedoing their own balance sheets. FULL STORY
I always like to try and connect the dots by using all points of view and putting these articles together so that you the reader can see the whole picture before making important decisions in your life.
For the past two years, I have been following Gerald Celente's Trends Journal. Celente has been so accurate in his predictions, I believe that anyone who doesn't at least make an effort to listen to his interviews and take head to what Celente has to say, deserves whatever unfortunate downfall they may encounter.
Gerald Celente has a solid track record. He has predicted everything from the 1987 stock market crash and the demise of the Soviet Union to green marketing and corporate downsizing. — The Detroit News
There’s not a better trend forecaster than Gerald Celente. The man knows what he’s talking about. — CNBC
When CNN wants to know about the Top Trends, we ask Gerald Celente. — CNN Headline News
Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour with Jim Puplava June 05 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Conversation with Campaign Volunteer
Last night I had the most delightful conversation with a young man who was out going door to door campaigning for Mary Valentine, Candidate for Michigan State Senate, 34th District. That would be my district.
It just happens that I have been acquainted with Mary before she entered politics. We attended the same church and I can say that Mary Valentine is a very nice, kind and caring person.
So my conversation with this young man went something like this.
I really like Mary as a person but I can't vote for her. The young man asked why. I told him that as a citizen/employer, it's my duty to look at each candidates resume, the literature he had just handed me, and if I found that what the candidate was promising violated the Michigan Constitution and Bill of Rights, (Job Description) then I could not vote (hire) that person.
He asked if I could point out for him where Mary Valentine in her literature did that. I said that Mary supports government union employees. Mary is a retired Speech Therapist and retired from Reeths-Puffer Schools in 2006. First and foremost, Mary is going to work for the Teachers Union.
Then I explained to this nice young man that we have always been self-employed. As the self-employed, we do not enjoy someone else paying for our healthcare benefits or contributing half of our retirement. The self-employed must pay 100% of their own PLUS pay for government employees. That is government taking my money and giving it to someone else and a violation of the Michigan Bill of Rights 1835. Article I Section 3 No exclusive privileges.
I told the young man that he should look up the Michigan Constitution and Bill of Rights 1963 and pay close attention to Article I Section 23, Enumeration of rights not to deny others.
This means that there are other RIGHTS that the people have retained but are not listed here in the 1963 Amended version of the Michigan Constitution so we must go back to the Original 1835 to see what other RIGHTS we have retained.
Political power.
First. All political power is inherent in the people.
Right of the people.
2. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, and to abolish one form of government and establish another, whenever the public good requires it.
No exclusive privileges.
3. No man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate privileges.
I did tell this young man who is also self-employed, that I'm sure Mary Valentine is unaware of the fact that she supports Un-Constitutional issues, but this is the reason why I can not support or vote for her.
There are other problems that I have with Mary Valentine's resume but this was a good example.
Mary says she is running to protect the Middle Class and Small Business by leading efforts to create jobs, Hire Michigan Workers first for "TAXPAYER-FUNDED JOBS".
What Mary doesn't understand is she isn't authorized by the Michigan Constitution to "CREAT JOBS" and any job creation Mary would support are "MORE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES" that you and I would have to support.
Muskegon County is now broke. The Muskegon County Employees and Retires eat up 85% of the Muskegon County Budget. The retires receive Dental Benefits for LIFE on top of Hospital and Pension.
Who are the "MIDDLE CLASS" today? The majority of what's left of our Middle Class are Township, City, County, State and Federal Employees. Federal Employees making up the majority of the upper Middle Class.
So when you are reading the CANDIDATE'S RESUME'S, keep this in mind, consult the Michigan Constitution to make sure their in line with Protecting EQUAL RIGHTS and not just supporting a special block of voters, because if elected, that's who they will represent and not YOU.
It just happens that I have been acquainted with Mary before she entered politics. We attended the same church and I can say that Mary Valentine is a very nice, kind and caring person.
So my conversation with this young man went something like this.
I really like Mary as a person but I can't vote for her. The young man asked why. I told him that as a citizen/employer, it's my duty to look at each candidates resume, the literature he had just handed me, and if I found that what the candidate was promising violated the Michigan Constitution and Bill of Rights, (Job Description) then I could not vote (hire) that person.
He asked if I could point out for him where Mary Valentine in her literature did that. I said that Mary supports government union employees. Mary is a retired Speech Therapist and retired from Reeths-Puffer Schools in 2006. First and foremost, Mary is going to work for the Teachers Union.
Then I explained to this nice young man that we have always been self-employed. As the self-employed, we do not enjoy someone else paying for our healthcare benefits or contributing half of our retirement. The self-employed must pay 100% of their own PLUS pay for government employees. That is government taking my money and giving it to someone else and a violation of the Michigan Bill of Rights 1835. Article I Section 3 No exclusive privileges.
I told the young man that he should look up the Michigan Constitution and Bill of Rights 1963 and pay close attention to Article I Section 23, Enumeration of rights not to deny others.
Sec. 23.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This means that there are other RIGHTS that the people have retained but are not listed here in the 1963 Amended version of the Michigan Constitution so we must go back to the Original 1835 to see what other RIGHTS we have retained.
Political power.
First. All political power is inherent in the people.
Right of the people.
2. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, and to abolish one form of government and establish another, whenever the public good requires it.
No exclusive privileges.
3. No man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate privileges.
I did tell this young man who is also self-employed, that I'm sure Mary Valentine is unaware of the fact that she supports Un-Constitutional issues, but this is the reason why I can not support or vote for her.
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)
There are other problems that I have with Mary Valentine's resume but this was a good example.
Mary says she is running to protect the Middle Class and Small Business by leading efforts to create jobs, Hire Michigan Workers first for "TAXPAYER-FUNDED JOBS".
What Mary doesn't understand is she isn't authorized by the Michigan Constitution to "CREAT JOBS" and any job creation Mary would support are "MORE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES" that you and I would have to support.
Muskegon County is now broke. The Muskegon County Employees and Retires eat up 85% of the Muskegon County Budget. The retires receive Dental Benefits for LIFE on top of Hospital and Pension.
Who are the "MIDDLE CLASS" today? The majority of what's left of our Middle Class are Township, City, County, State and Federal Employees. Federal Employees making up the majority of the upper Middle Class.
So when you are reading the CANDIDATE'S RESUME'S, keep this in mind, consult the Michigan Constitution to make sure their in line with Protecting EQUAL RIGHTS and not just supporting a special block of voters, because if elected, that's who they will represent and not YOU.
Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour with Jim Puplava June 05 2010
Fascism has come to America : Gerald Celente
Matthews Perverts Tea Party Movement: Participants View Federal Government as British Occupiers
“You know that Gadsden flag, the ‘Don’t Tread on Me Flag’ with a rattlesnake is so important,” Matthews said. “They believe, a lot of people in the right – that the federal government has replaced the British as the occupying force in North America and they have to be ready to fight it. It’s serious business.”
But the scary thing, according to Matthews, is these people he has caricatured have guns.
“Some have the guns, some don’t,” Matthews said. “Some have the Tea Party aspect. But it’s always that flag, ‘Don’t Tread on Me.’ They believe Washington is London.” FULL STORY
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Analysis: The Underfunded Schools Myth
By MICHAEL VAN BEEK | June 4, 2010
A common claim by Michigan's public school establishment and its political allies is that, despite spending $20 billion annually on education, our schools are "underfunded." Comparisons to other states and to historical funding levels show that the claim is unsubstantiated and misleading.
The underfunding myth rests on an assumption that there exists some known "price" for a public school education that taxpayers are failing to meet. In fact, no such figure exists. All we have are the amounts actually spent on schools and the knowledge that they have consistently increased each year for at least the last five decades.
According the National Center for Education Statistics, the per-student operating cost of Michigan's public schools nearly quadrupled from 1960 to 2007, from $2,991 in 1960 to $11,337 in 2007, as measured in 2007 dollars. Therefore, insinuations by the school establishment that its funding has undergone some dramatic decline in recent years should be taken with a large grain of salt. (These per-pupil operational expenses do not include school buildings and other capital spending.)
In addition, Michigan taxpayers transfer a greater proportion of their income to public schools than all but one state (Vermont). Figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (and reported by the National Education Association) show that some $55 out of every $1,000 in state personal income is consumed by our public school establishment. Vermont residents pay $56 per $1,000, and the national average is around $43 per $1,000. Residents in Nevada pay the least, $32 per $1,000 of personal income.
There are other ways of comparing public school price and value. Some types of tax-supported schools cost much less to operate than others. Michigan's public charter schools cost on average $2,200 less per pupil in 2007 than conventional schools. Put another way, public charter schools provide essentially the same service at a 25 percent "discount." Rather than accepting the "underfunding" myth, perhaps taxpayers should complain about being overcharged.
The real reason for school money troubles is not "underfunding," but a failure to contain employee costs that comprise about 80 percent of operational budgets. As long as school boards continue to agree to contracts that grant school employees, particularly teachers, automatic pay increases and lavish benefits packages that outpace comparable private-sector averages and the ability of taxpayers to support, schools will never have "adequate" funding. FULL STORY
By MICHAEL VAN BEEK | Feb. 9, 2010
School district health care database available at www.mackinac.org/ depts/epi/insurance.aspx
If the goal of Michigan's public education system is to provide employees with outlandishly expensive health insurance, our school districts are remarkably successful. But if educating children is the mission — as it should be — some difficult decisions need to be made. As tax revenues decline along with the state's economy and population, schools must decide whether to cut programs or control health insurance costs.
The Mackinac Center recently surveyed all 551 conventional school districts about their employer-provided health insurance costs in 2008-2009. The results were eye-opening. The cost of the average family plan for teachers was 39 percent higher than the statewide average for the same type of plan. Teachers on average contributed 4 percent to their own health care premiums, compared to the state average contribution of 22 percent. In more than 300 school district plans, teachers did not contribute anything to their own premium costs. FULL STORY
A common claim by Michigan's public school establishment and its political allies is that, despite spending $20 billion annually on education, our schools are "underfunded." Comparisons to other states and to historical funding levels show that the claim is unsubstantiated and misleading.
The underfunding myth rests on an assumption that there exists some known "price" for a public school education that taxpayers are failing to meet. In fact, no such figure exists. All we have are the amounts actually spent on schools and the knowledge that they have consistently increased each year for at least the last five decades.
According the National Center for Education Statistics, the per-student operating cost of Michigan's public schools nearly quadrupled from 1960 to 2007, from $2,991 in 1960 to $11,337 in 2007, as measured in 2007 dollars. Therefore, insinuations by the school establishment that its funding has undergone some dramatic decline in recent years should be taken with a large grain of salt. (These per-pupil operational expenses do not include school buildings and other capital spending.)
In addition, Michigan taxpayers transfer a greater proportion of their income to public schools than all but one state (Vermont). Figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (and reported by the National Education Association) show that some $55 out of every $1,000 in state personal income is consumed by our public school establishment. Vermont residents pay $56 per $1,000, and the national average is around $43 per $1,000. Residents in Nevada pay the least, $32 per $1,000 of personal income.
There are other ways of comparing public school price and value. Some types of tax-supported schools cost much less to operate than others. Michigan's public charter schools cost on average $2,200 less per pupil in 2007 than conventional schools. Put another way, public charter schools provide essentially the same service at a 25 percent "discount." Rather than accepting the "underfunding" myth, perhaps taxpayers should complain about being overcharged.
The real reason for school money troubles is not "underfunding," but a failure to contain employee costs that comprise about 80 percent of operational budgets. As long as school boards continue to agree to contracts that grant school employees, particularly teachers, automatic pay increases and lavish benefits packages that outpace comparable private-sector averages and the ability of taxpayers to support, schools will never have "adequate" funding. FULL STORY
Most School Health Care Plans Are Too Expensive For Michigan
By MICHAEL VAN BEEK | Feb. 9, 2010
School district health care database available at www.mackinac.org/ depts/epi/insurance.aspx
If the goal of Michigan's public education system is to provide employees with outlandishly expensive health insurance, our school districts are remarkably successful. But if educating children is the mission — as it should be — some difficult decisions need to be made. As tax revenues decline along with the state's economy and population, schools must decide whether to cut programs or control health insurance costs.
The Mackinac Center recently surveyed all 551 conventional school districts about their employer-provided health insurance costs in 2008-2009. The results were eye-opening. The cost of the average family plan for teachers was 39 percent higher than the statewide average for the same type of plan. Teachers on average contributed 4 percent to their own health care premiums, compared to the state average contribution of 22 percent. In more than 300 school district plans, teachers did not contribute anything to their own premium costs. FULL STORY
Employee Records Hard to Come by at Mysterious State Child Care Agency
By TOM GANTERT | June 5, 2010
The Michigan Home Based Child Care Council (MHBCCC), a controversial government agency that the legislature attempted to defund but was kept alive by the Michigan Department of Human Services, said in a June 2 letter it doesn't have a job description for its $80,000 executive director position and doesn't track the hours of its top executive.
But once contacted by Michigan Capitol Confidential, MHBCCC Executive Director D. Elizabeth Jordan stated Saturday in an e-mail the agency would provide a job description. Jordan's e-mail said there were no time sheets.
The government agency replied to a Freedom Of Information Act request by the Mackinac Center For Public Policy in a June 2 letter. It stated:
"Executive Director Time Sheets or other records which demonstrate hours spent on the job on MHBCCC-related business and which explain the fulfillment of the aforementioned job description and requirements. Please be advised that no such documents exist."
Jordan signed the June 2 letter that stated there were no documents on her job. Jordan's salary is $80,000 a year.
The MHBCC was created by the Michigan Department of Human Services and Mott Community College to act as a so-called employer of the state's 40,000 home-based child care providers and business owners. The MHBCCC signed a contract with a government employee union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan that allows the MHBCCC to collect union dues from the home-based workers and employers.
Earlier this year, the state legislature cut the funding for the MHBCCC but the Department of Human Services kept it alive by find other funds within its budget.FULL STORY
The Michigan Home Based Child Care Council (MHBCCC), a controversial government agency that the legislature attempted to defund but was kept alive by the Michigan Department of Human Services, said in a June 2 letter it doesn't have a job description for its $80,000 executive director position and doesn't track the hours of its top executive.
But once contacted by Michigan Capitol Confidential, MHBCCC Executive Director D. Elizabeth Jordan stated Saturday in an e-mail the agency would provide a job description. Jordan's e-mail said there were no time sheets.
The government agency replied to a Freedom Of Information Act request by the Mackinac Center For Public Policy in a June 2 letter. It stated:
"Executive Director Time Sheets or other records which demonstrate hours spent on the job on MHBCCC-related business and which explain the fulfillment of the aforementioned job description and requirements. Please be advised that no such documents exist."
Jordan signed the June 2 letter that stated there were no documents on her job. Jordan's salary is $80,000 a year.
The MHBCC was created by the Michigan Department of Human Services and Mott Community College to act as a so-called employer of the state's 40,000 home-based child care providers and business owners. The MHBCCC signed a contract with a government employee union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan that allows the MHBCCC to collect union dues from the home-based workers and employers.
Earlier this year, the state legislature cut the funding for the MHBCCC but the Department of Human Services kept it alive by find other funds within its budget.FULL STORY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)