Carol Shea-Porter - We Can Save the Middle Class

When I ran for Congress in 2006, I told people I was running “for the rest of us, the bottom 99 percent.” I said the middle class was stumbling and the poor had fallen, and we needed to address wealth inequality and our unfair tax structure if we were going to have a robust middle class. Some thought this was “class warfare,” although I always said I wanted businesses, corporations and individuals to do well, and I hoped to have more money myself. I just wanted everyone to pay their fair share – not a penny more – but their fair share. I was worried about the lack of revenue collected from those who legally dodged paying their fair share, and the unfair tax burden on the middle class who didn’t have lobbyists and accountants to “protect” their income, so they had to pick up the bill.

Five years have passed since then. We lived through the Wall Street meltdown, and we managed to escape another depression, but the recession has been deep and long. America lost 8 million jobs during this time. Although there has been job growth for the past 20 months, it’s still weak and too many are unemployed or underemployed. All this misery has led more people to discuss the issue of wealth and fairness in this country, and it’s been an eye opener for them. They have learned of executive pay in the millions. They heard the CNN Money report that two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid zero federal income tax. They know taxes are much lower on the rich than they were in the prosperous 1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower or in the prosperous 1990s under President Bill Clinton.

USA Today’s recent article, “The Fading Middle Class,” said in 2010, the top 20 percent of households in America received 50.3 percent of the income. It quoted Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center: “The lower share of income is a way of saying income inequality is growing in the middle …The vast middle class has less of the pie than it had before.”

That is obvious to most people. Actually though, the picture is worse.

Marketplace economics correspondent Chris Farrell sums it up nicely:

“Well the problem is two-fold. One is the rich keep getting richer, and you know, the top 1 percent – the top 1 percent measured by income, they captured slightly more than half of overall economic growth from the period of 1993 to 2008. So it feeds the sense that this economy is increasingly unfair. But the real point is about equality of opportunity. As the rich get richer, there’s less opportunity for those who don’t belong to that class.”

That is the larger problem. If there is less opportunity, America starts to look like other countries

Instead of the land of opportunity and possibility. While everyone uses their own words to talk about the American dream, we know it’s about opportunity. Americans always looked with hope and optimism to the future, knowing that working hard opened up doors. Now, they doubt their children will have the chance to prosper.

We can change this, and we should. Fix the tax code. U.S. corporations need to pay their taxes. Enforce collection. Fairly tax the very wealthy, and take away subsidies. Stop allowing the special interests to write the tax code that allows the super rich and influential to avoid taxes.

Here is what Sen. Tom Coburn, a very conservative Oklahoma Republican, wrote in his newly released report, “ Subsidies of the Rich and Famous.”

“From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multi-millionaires are even receiving government checks for not working. This welfare for the well-off – costing billions of dollars a year – is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations.”

Invest in education. Invest in infrastructure and create jobs. Stop unfair trade agreements that ship our jobs overseas. Create more incentives to manufacture in America. There are a number of ways we can right the ship, and we must do them all fast. We owe that to our children.

*******

Former congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s 1st District from 2007-11. She is seeking a third term in the November 2012 election. She wrote the proposal for and established a nonprofit social service agency, which continues to serve all ages. She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Harry Reid Wants Billions of Dollars Put into Pet Liberal Social Programs

By Nick Fortune

Harry Reid is threatening to hold the Senate hostage over a holiday weekend until his $60 billion unfunded spending bill is passed. "We're not going to leave here," he said. Sound familiar? See below.  The Dems are in total control and don't care about the taxpayers they broke into the bank and they're not going to leave until they've stolen every single dollar.

Harry Reid is using an "emergency" war-funding bill to funnel billions of dollars into pet liberal social programs.

 

A key vote is expected today and Reid has pledged to keep the Senate in session through the holiday weekend until his bill is passed.

In all, Congress is rushing* to pass two massive spending bills that include at least $150 billion in new unfunded spending.  And Dems are expected to reject Sen. Coburn's effort to require that all new spending be offset by corresponding cuts (that vote is taking place today as well).   * Fraud is always in a hurry

 

+ + Tell your Senators: No More Unfunded Spending!

It is the height of political cynicism to use an emergency war-funding bill to push liberal social programs and expand the deficit by billions of dollars. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel,

---

 

The House and Senate "spendulous" bills this week include:


--$23 billion in a public school teacher bailout     The union connection against the non-union taxpayer. 

--Extension of unemployment benefits through November

--Billions of dollars for more Medicare funding

--$4 billion in foreign aid to Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan

--$5.1 billion for Haiti   The American taxpayer is going into debt borrowing money from China* (of all places) in order to send precious dollars to foreign countries. * The borrower is servant to the lender. Proverbs (ch. XXII, v. 7). He who borrows sells his freedom. A German Proverb

--$1.7 billion for police and firefighters   The union connection against the non-union taxpayer. 


--$5.7 billion for Pell Grants  ( Pell Grants are targeted toward students from poor families, receipt of them is often used by researchers as a proxy for low-income student attendance and to indicate the economic diversity of the student body. )  Thanks to generations of federal, and state grants, African American students now have more college funding options available than ever before. In response to the plenitude of resources, college enrollment among African American students is at an all time high, even though the Hispanic population now outnumbers that of African Americans.  Strong support for the education and social advancement of African American students has come from the thirty-nine historically black colleges in the United States.

+ + Say "NO" to unfunded spending  What happens when you and I spend money that we don't have on our credit card?  We CAN'T do that; but the government can with our money?


Sen. Tom Coburn is drawing a line in the sand and saying that any new spending must be funded with corresponding cuts.  If you agree with Sen. Coburn, then take a stand today and tell your two Senators and your Representative -- along with other key members of Congress -- to stop the unfunded spending.

Two ways you can contact your members of Congress:

Send your own emails to your Senators and your Rep and then phone them

Call the Congressional Switchboard (202) 224-3121

Talking Points:

#1--I oppose any new unfunded spending bills that are not
   offset by corresponding CUTS in federal spending.

#2--I am outraged that Congress continues to abuse the term
   "emergency" in order to justify massive new deficit
   spending programs.

#3--I strongly oppose the adding funding for non-military
   programs to the emergency military funding bill

From Russia With Love

The authenticity of this piece was verified by Snopes (link provided at the end of article). The following is an article that appeared in the national Russian newpaper Pravda recently.       Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 2:43 PM  From Pravda a Russian Newspaper   The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian on-line newspaper) defies description.  Why can a Russian newspaper print the following yet the American media can't/won't see it? Check Snopes link below.    American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper        It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.     True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.     Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.     First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy".  Pride blind the foolish.     Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more than happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power.  Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .     The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama.  His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive.  His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America ' s short history but in the world.  If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst  Zimbabwe .     These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all.  First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, losses, and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars.  These make our Russian oligarchs look little more than ordinary street thugs, in comparison.  Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes.  Should we congratulate them?     These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another.  They are also usurping the rights, duties, and powers of the American congress (parliament).  Again, congress has put up little more than a whimper to their masters.     Then came Barack Obama ' s command that GM ' s (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his company.  That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self-given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will.  Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.     So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies..  I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less than two months ago, warned Obama and UK ' s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster.  Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.     Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "free man" whimper.     So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance, and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?  SenatorBarney Frank, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort.  He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.     The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.  The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest, and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is.  The world will only snicker.  Snopes link -    http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pravda.asp

What President Obama Didn't Say

The gentleman from Ohio - the last man standing on health care, as he put it in this conversation with Esquire.com just before Sunday's vote - reveals the personal moments behind his decision, and how the fate of a nation, if not a presidency, could have turned out a lot differently had he said "no."

By: Dennis Kucinich - as told to Mark Warren, Sunday, March 21, 2010
>From Esquire.com - March 22, 2010, 2:35 pm

The meeting that took place on Air Force One was the fourth in a series of meetings that I had attended with the president in the last few months. There was a meeting on March 4 where the president called nine members to the Roosevelt Room at the White House, and eight of the members had voted for the bill when it passed the House last fall. I was the only one who voted against the bill. I thanked the president for inviting me even though I was a "no" vote. And in the more than hour-long meeting, the president covered a lot of territory about what he thought was important to consider. I sat quietly and listened carefully and took some notes. And at the end of the meeting, you know, we thanked each other, and I left.

When I arrived home that evening - March 4 - I still had this deep sense of compassion for the president for what he was struggling with in trying to pass the bill. And it was very clear to me that there was a lot on the line here - that he didn't say. I was just thinking about the scope of American history, and here's a president who's trying to do something, even if I don't agree with him. I told my wife, "You know I kinda feel bad about the situation he's in here. This is really a tough situation - his presidency is on the line." And I had a sense of sadness about what I saw him grappling with. I still maintained my position, still went forward in debates, arguing in meetings, arguing against the bill because it didn't have a public option, didn't have an opening for the states to pursue single-payer in a free manner. But at the same time I kinda remember the feeling that I had about watching him as he was dealing with this and, you know, trying to do what he felt was best for the nation.

Now keep something in mind about my relationship with President Obama: He and I campaigned together. A meeting with the president is always important - he and I have met dozens of times, during the campaign and since he became president - but we've met on many occasions. Four or five times about health care. So the relationship I have with him is a little bit different than other members who weren't on the campaign trail with him and who hadn't developed a relationship with him apart from the relationship that members of Congress ordinarily have with the president.

So I was really looking at Barack Obama the man, and thinking about his presidency. I've had differences of opinion with him on a number of issues. But I understand how this is a pivotal moment in America, and in his presidency. It's also a pivotal moment in American history. Of course, I carried that awareness with me into the next meeting, which took place on Air Force One on the fifteenth of March. Last Monday. So much has happened in just one week, but during that time, there had been a lot of speculation. I had done many interviews attacking the bill for its well-publicized shortcomings and I was not relenting. After we met on Air Force One, I didn't tell the president that "Look, I'm changing my position - you got me." We didn't have that discussion.

My decision came last Tuesday morning. There's a place where I go in the Capitol, just to kind of reflect - before I have to make very important decisions. It's in the rotunda - right next to Lincoln's statue. It's just a bench. And I went over there early Tuesday morning, about seven in the morning when the sun was just coming up, and no one else was around - there wasn't a sound in the Capitol at that moment in the morning. And I just sat down there in a quiet place and thought about this decision. And that's literally where I made up my mind that, notwithstanding how much there was in the bill that I didn't like, that I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency, to step forward and say, "We must pass this bill. And we must use this bill as an opening toward a renewed effort for a more comprehensive approach to health care reform."

The Speaker and I also had many discussions about the bill. And I talked to her briefly on Monday night and told her that I was giving some thought to the appeals that she had made to me. And she said, "Oh, Dennis, you know, I just hope that you'll be with us on this. This is so important." And I said, "Well I'm giving some thought to what your concerns have been, Madame Speaker." And on Monday night, I talked to my wife, Elizabeth - at home, it was late.

Elizabeth asked how the day went. And I told her. I said, "You know I'm giving this a lot of thought." I asked, "What would you think if I decided to support this?" And she said, "Look, I'll support - whatever decision you make, I'll stand behind you." And it was important for me to talk to her because, you know, spouses live with the decisions that members of Congress make. I mean, I have had occasion to ask Elizabeth's opinion, and if she feels very strongly about something, I'm open to being persuaded. That's just what happens when you have a partnership. So I asked what she thought, and then I got up in the morning and headed right over to the Capitol just to meditate on all the discussions that I'd had - with the president, with Speaker Pelosi, with my wife, and with my constituents.

And then after being in the rotunda for about fifteen minutes, I left and went over to my office. That afternoon, I had a meeting with my staff, and I told them that I was going to come out in favor of the bill. But I had no discussions with anyone. And I did not notify the White House - the White House found out about it when I announced it from the press gallery. Because I just felt that this had to be a decision that I made on my own, without any coaxing one way or another. I wanted even people in the White House to know that this decision came ultimately from my own willingness to pay careful attention to the concerns that the president, the Speaker, and others had expressed to me.

This was a particularly hard decision because the private insurance model is something that I don't support. As I've said before, I don't take back any of the criticisms I've made of the bill. This is reform within the context of a for-profit system. And the for-profit system has been quite predatory - it makes money for not providing health care. Now, the reforms in this bill may provide some relief from that impulse. But, nevertheless, I have my work cut out for me now in continuing the effort toward a much broader approach to health care reform, which would include attention to diet, nutrition, complementary alternative medicine, and empowering states to move forward with single-payer.

When it comes to analyzing the law we've just passed, it's hard to use terms like good or bad. Because ultimately what was decisive for me was not the bill, but rather the potential to create an opening for a more comprehensive approach toward health care reform. If the bill were to go down, this whole discussion about anything we might hope to do in health care in the future is not going to happen in this generation. We had to wait sixteen years after the demise of the Clinton plan to come to this moment. And the angst that members are feeling about this bill - the temperature that's been raised in the body politic over this bill, the characterizations of the bill in a debate that's been quite distorted - all of those things argue against bringing up another health care bill in the near future if this bill were to go down.

Well I had to consider that. Because I have to take responsibility for that.

Someone in the media said that I was prepared to be the Ralph Nader of health care reform. If by the Ralph Nader of health care reform someone means someone who holds crooked corporations accountable, then that's a compliment. If they were referring to the 2000 presidential race, I think those who were closest in the Gore campaign realize that that campaign was death by a thousand cuts. And to try to put it all on Ralph Nader is, you know, historically glib.

But the synthesis of that argument was this: People were telling me, "Dennis, you are helping to gather momentum in the direction toward the defeat of the bill." That's what people were telling me. That's what the message was. And: "Is this something you really want to do?" And of course I have to consider, when the vote is close, and however the final tally turns, but whether the bill passes by one vote or five votes or more, the question of momentum was something everyone was concerned about at that point. And people were concerned that if I continued to maintain my position of hammering away at the defects of the bill that I may cause its defeat. That's a legitimate criticism. It's something that I had to take into account in terms of my personal responsibility for the position that I held, and the impact that it would have on my constituents. We always have to be open to people who may hold a view that may be different than yours. Because you might learn something.

And so as we came closer, and it appeared that I would be in a pivotal position, I realized that the moment required me to look at this in the broadest terms possible. To look at this in terms of the long-term impact on my constituents, of the moment in history in which we now stand, of the impact on the country, of the impact on the Obama presidency, on the impact on the president personally. I had to think about all of this. I couldn't just say, "Well here's my position: I'm for single-payer, and this isn't single-payer, so I'm going to defeat the bill."

Last year, seventy-seven members of Congress agreed that if the bill didn't have a public option, they were going to vote against it. And there were only two members who had kept that pledge when it was voted on the first time in the House. And I was one of them. And the other one's no longer in Congress. So I basically was the last man standing here. So I'm aware of the debate that took place in favor of the bill. My concern was that this bill was hermetically sealed to admit no opening toward a not-for-profit system, no competition from the public sector with the private insurers. Which makes the claims of a government takeover such a joke. You know, those who claim that this is socialism probably don't know anything about socialism - or capitalism.

Those claims are just part of an effort to destroy the Obama presidency. And, of course, to produce gridlock - so that nothing can happen. Because if this bill goes down, which figured into my calculus - the bill goes down, we'll be gridlocked. We will be unlikely to pass any meaningful legislation about anything. The presidency will be weakened, the Congress will be in a place where the leadership will be undermined.

But let's go deeper than that. We're at a pivotal moment in American history, and in contrast to a crippled presidency, I have to believe that this effort, however imperfect, will now have a broad positive effect on American society, and make possible many things that might not have otherwise been possible. Once this bill is signed into law, more Americans are going to be aware of this as they ask, What's in it for me? And as they become more familiar with the new law, more people will be accepting this bill. The president will have a stronger hand in domestic and international affairs, and that will be good for the country. The Democrats will be emboldened to pass an economic agenda, which has been waiting for this bill to pass. Wrong or right, as far as a strategy, the White House invested so much in this health care bill that everything else was waiting. Now, I think there's a chance that the party will regain some momentum. And if it does, then the American people will finally have a chance to see something done about creating jobs, about keeping people in their homes, about helping small businesses get access to credit, which is a huge problem right now.

And so I think that the pivot here could be toward a very exciting time where the Obama presidency gets a chance to hit the reset button. This is my hope, at least.

All of this went through my mind as I sat in the quiet Capitol rotunda last Tuesday morning. I thought about what could happen if I was willing to show some flexibility, and to compromise for the sake of a broader progress. That was all part of my thinking as I got the point where I stepped to the podium in the Capitol to announce my decision. And right after I finished what I had to say and left the room, the president called. I understood the importance of the call, and he understood the importance of the decision that I made. There was gravity in the moment. There is a lot at stake here.

I took it all into account - everything that I hoped would happen if this were to pass, everything that I hope will happen. And if those things come to pass because of the small role I may have played in switching the momentum, then my service in Congress has been worth it.

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/dennis-kucinich-health-care-bill-032210



Born Again America---Powerful Song?

By Nick Fortune

The following group calls itself American, like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), and Citizens For The American Way; neither of which are pro traditional American. Don't let them fool you. This is a Liberal Progressive effort to deceive people. The left has always had contempt for patriotic Americans suggesting that we "wrap ourselves up in the American flag" (they disrespectfully called it "a peice of cloth").  Now they've decided to wrap themselves up by using the word American in order to deceive and promote an unAmerican agenda.

The following is the video that they're sending around even to conservatives hoping to dupe them into serving their agenda.  

Click on the line below and turn up your sound: 

http://www.bornagainamerican.org/index.html

These "People For The American Way" wouldn't know the American Way if it hit them in the face. This is an effort to counter the Tea Party movement.

Read what they have to say about traditional Americans ("the right")

Right Wing Watch in Focus: Rise of the New McCarthyism

Video: Fight the Right!

Right Wing Watch in Focus: Right Plays the Race Card

Anti-Gay Politics and the Religious Right *

Tell the President and Congress: It's time to repeal DOMA.

They use the term  "Born Again" to further deceive people; the only way they want America to be Born Again is in the NEW Image of Obaman CHANGE; i.e. Marxism. 

They want to do away with our Founding Fathers and want to dismantle the public manifestation of Christianity.  These are the people who want us to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas so we don't offend the anti-Christians. They're for gay marriage and for whatever other distortion of marriage it will bring. 

DO NOT BE FOOLED!