If you haven’t heard it yet, the following is the audio clip of a the prank caller (Buffalo, N.Y., blogger Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast) pretending to be billionaire conservative businessman David Koch in a lengthy conversation with Gov, Walker that not only revealed the latter’s strategy to cripple public employee unions but left no doubt to whom the Governor answers.  

Hopefully Congress will be able to make it home some time before January 4th.

It’s also now obvious to almost everyone that the “monied interests and political mercenaries” are running the show.  Equally obvious is the fact that health care reform, government regulation ( banking industry, EPA), Social Security and Medicare are at the very top of their hit lists.

And, if it’s not true that the plutocrats are calling the shots,  it certainly appears that way.

Washington Post Staff Writer Dan Eggen reported on the influence of “outside entities” on the budget process this past Wednesday.  He wrote:

    “The leaders of President Obama’s deficit commission sparked criticism from both sides of the political aisle Wednesday for proposing broad cuts to federal programs.

    But the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has also come under attack for its unusual approach to staffing: Many of its employees aren’t employed by the panel at all.

    Instead, about one in four commission staffers is paid by outside entities, many of which have strong ideological points of view about how to tackle the deficit.

    For example, the salaries of two senior staffers, Marc Goldwein and Ed Lorenzen, are paid by private groups that have previously advocated cuts to entitlement programs. Lorenzen is paid by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while Goldwein is paid by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is also partly funded by the Peterson group.

    The outsourcing has come under sharp criticism from seniors’ organizations and liberal activists, who say the strategy is part of a broader conservative bias favoring painful entitlement cuts over other solutions. The fears of some liberal groups appeared to come true on Wednesday, when the commission’s two leaders recommended significant reductions for Social Security and other social-welfare programs.

    Bruce Reed, the panel’s executive director, defended the staffing arrangement as fiscally responsible and said the staff includes a broad range of views. Other staffers paid by outside entities include an analyst from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute and a Clinton administration official who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, he said.

    “We’ve got wonks from across the spectrum who have been working on this issue for years,” Reed said. “Every possible voice from left, right or center has a voice on the commission.”

    But Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic House member from Connecticut who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the commission’s staffing structure is “unprecedented” and casts further doubt on its fairness.

    “Taxpayers fund the commission and they should work independently of Washington lobbyists and power brokers,” Kennelly said. “This is the type of shenanigans that average Americans are so upset about right now – that money talks and everyone else is left out”

If you ask the average American citizen, “who in Washington do you trust to reform Social Security?”,  you would probably receive the answer, “no one.”   And they would have more than a few reasons for feeling that way.   It is very hard for most Americans, myself included,  to understand  why an “entitlement program”  which is  funded by a clearly designated tax  (FICA) is always one of the first programs that gets offered up on the political sacrificial alter when the discussion involves federal budget cuts.

“Republicans who took over the House on pledges to reduce federal spending and get the nation’s budget in order are running into the third rail of U.S. politics.

A draft proposal from the co-chairman of President Obama’s fiscal commission this week put Social Security on the front burner, leading some Democrats to draw a line in the sand. The proposal would raise the retirement age, slightly reduce benefits and raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.


While the proposal was drawn up to keep Social Security solvent and not to deal specifically with reducing the nation’s record deficit, Democratic strategists say it will be difficult for Republicans to duck an issue that has caused them political pain in the past.


“It does put them in a tough position,” Mike Lux, a strategist who works with liberal advocacy groups, said of the GOP. “These kinds of proposals, raising the retirement age and cutting benefits, are overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.”

Soon-to-be-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is on record supporting similar changes to Social Security, as is Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee and rising intellectual star of the House Republican Conference.”

Well I think that this is as good a place as any to conclude part one of this series.  


Talk to you soon

—-
originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation blog

The second reports on new Pew information: “Fully 46% say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported government loans to banks during the financial crisis two years ago, while nearly as many (42%) say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate backed by Sarah Palin.” [bold not in original]

On top of that information, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon are all struggling of late too. A poll out today from California says that the Palin support is more likely to hurt Whitman and Fiorina than help (Independents do not see Palin favorably). Those three candidates already are trying to fight the odds of self-funders (that they rarely get far). Nikki Haley just torpedoed herself by saying that she supports drug tests for all unemployment recipients (imagine losing your job because a plant shuts down – so you have to take a drug test to get benefits from a system you paid into and otherwise have no record?). And polls indicate that Christine O’Donnell is getting no traction while Sharon Angle is also having a rough time, although appears to have the most chance right now against a weak and targeted Harry Reid. And Democrat  Diane Denish is picking up steam against Palin-backed Susanna Martinez in New Mexico.  So far, Kelly Ayotte, whom Palin before her primary though in a state well-known for wanting to go its own way, really seems to be one of the few high profile, high level female candidates connected at all to Palin who is doing well.

What’s going on and what does it mean?  Read the rest of this post at Writes Like She Talks.

BlogHer contributing editor Mata posted on this today – Is it a joke, or is it hatred disguised in Biblical language?

She quotes Frank Schaeffer who appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Here is a video clip (you need to get about 50 seconds in)…

This is beyond disturbing, it’s down right scary.

I’m interested in knowing what others in this community think about this extreme hatred toward our president. Is it going too far? Let us know what you think in comments.

Below is a DNC video that I recently was sent a link to.  And this is some of how I feel about it…

I don’t claim to have any answers – just questions.  So, here goes.

I could understand the Republicans being against Obama’s healthcare plan if they at least had a plan of their own.  Do they?

Sometimes I wonder if our elected government  has forgotten that they represent The “United” States of America…and that this issue is about LIVES not elections.

Okay, that wasn’t really a question, more like a statement.

And I’m totally NOT for taxing the top 2% of Americans to subsidize the 15% without insurance. But just out of curiosity…

Who are these people?  The top 2% people?  Are you one of them?

And how many of them would be totally against donating some of their wealth or business savvy (at least temporarily) to finding a way to help the uninsured of their own country?

Seriously. Did anyone think to ask? Maybe this population of our country isn’t as heartless and greedy as some people would like us to believe?

Anyway…Here’s the video from the DNC.  What do you think about all of this?  Dare I ask?

CRA requires banks with branches in disadvantaged communities stop discriminatory practices called redlining. Redlining means that no matter what the credit worthiness of a borrow is, if he or she lives within certain boundaries, banks summarily dismissed their loan applications. While redlining is technically illegal, banks continued to practice it anyway. CRA said that if you want to do business in a community, you need to find ways to responsibly invest in it. One way to do so is to find credit-worthy borrowers and provide them with mortgages. This worked very well for over 30 years.

Although the Act’s critics claim otherwise, CRA does NOT mandate that banks lend to disadvantaged borrowers who are not credit-worthy, nor did it lead to banks lowering their underwriting standards to comply with the law. According to an independent study of 2006 mortgage loan data conducted by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley LLP, CRA actually deterred banks from engaging in the kinds of risky and subprime lending that brought on the foreclosure crisis. Specifically, the findings show that:

1. CRA banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;
2. The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;
3. CRA banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolios; and
4. Foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan statistical areas with greater concentrations of bank branches.

Whether one agrees with CRA’s mandate that banks responsibly serve the communities in which they accept deposits or not, the data shows that CRA actually deterred irresponsible lending. Further, the Treasury Department and the FDIC have emphatically stated that CRA is in no way responsible for the situation we are in today.

Instead of blaming CRA, we should extend CRA provisions to the independent mortgage companies and bank affiliates from which at least 75% of subprime loans originated. To continue to mislead the public on the benefits of CRA is not only immoral, but it would lead us into situation in which more – not less – of the irresponsible lending that created our current meltdown takes place.

What do you think? Is Sarah Palin a diva? Is the McCain campaign guilty of sexism?

From ABC News…

Aides to Sen. John McCain anonymously attacked Palin in several reports today, criticizing the Alaska governor for diverting from the McCain campaign’s message, suggesting Palin was unhappy with certain campaign aides and accusing her of thinking more about her political future than about the success of the McCain-Palin ticket.

In an interview with CNN today, one McCain adviser anonymously called Palin “a diva” and said “she is playing for her own future” political prospects.

“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” the advisor told CNN. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”

From USA Today…

Sen. Ted Stevens was found guilty Monday on seven counts of concealing more than $250,000 in gifts from wealthy friends — becoming the fifth U.S. senator ever to be convicted of a crime.

The verdict comes about a week before Alaska’s voters will decide whether to re-elect the Republican senator to an eighth term and at a time when his party is fighting to stem its losses in a tough year.

How does this conviction affect the McCain/Palin campaign? Isn’t it a little odd that Sen. Stevens can still be elected to the Senate, but as a convicted felon, he can’t vote? Let me know what you think in comments.