freedoms, healing & stories in the news
Government: who rules us.
Winds of change will come to California. Scott Walker and Wisconsin successfully oppose excessive costs of benefits for government union employees. The Tea Parties (plural & unique) are part of those Winds of Change sweeping America. Increasingly, more Americans cool to the costs for retirement and health benefits of teachers & other government employees.
Wet your finger, hold it up and blow on it. That coolness is how taxpayers increasingly feel towards public-sector unions.
The winds of change that started in Wisconsin with Scott Walker will spread to California.
The Tea parties – plural and unique — are part of that change. Santa Cruz Sentinel letter writers Mr. Sosbee, Mr. Pat Browne and others are welcome to join a local Santa Cruz County (California) “respectable, responsible and respectful†group of tea party citizens. The Tea Party of Mid-County Santa Cruz’s goal: create more organic community gardens. You need a shovel and seed to join.
By the way, there are 20+ Community Garden Plots available in Mid-County Santa Cruz County. At Christ Lutheran Church. You pay only for the cost of the water. Come meet neighbors and grow healthy, local food.
And while you dig your community garden plot — lets talk about national politics!
Now that we know where Obama was born — what about publishing the articles that Obama wrote for the Harvard Law Review? How about his senior thesis — what was the topic and main points? How well does he actually write?
And let’s talk about the public sector unions, about their connection to Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign, about “money laundering” such that my SEIU dues end up in the Democratic Party coffers which support political causes I do not support.
Is it time that California became a “right to work” state and people who MUST join a union have a choice NOT to join a union.
A union says that an aircraft company cannot leave the state of Washington and go to another state (South Carolina) where labor costs are lower. We have laws that protect welfare recipients so they can move to California where benefits are higher. But unions can prevent companies from moving to another state? Does this make sense? What say you ?
Massive government spending IS the problem. Keynesian economic theory is not supported by government spending over the last three years. Medicare can be reined in by 1) restore what Obama cut ($575 BILLION) and 2) give seniors over 65 and soon to be the CHOICE of a) “premium care” (individual choice) versus 15 faceless bureaucrats making decisons that congress cannot over-ride. That’s an easy choice!
“Take away Reagan/Bush tax cuts and we wouldn’t have a spending problem (Santa Cruz Sentinel, Letter to Editor by Sosbee 4-29-2011).
Wrong. Reagan’s tax cuts lead to unprecedented growth in 1982-84 over 7.1% for 4 straight quarters and over 4% growth for another 2 years.
Obama uses massive government spending (Keynesian economic theory) to fix our problems. Results? So far, no fix. And no support for Keynesian theory. Obama’s massive spending diet does not work.
Obama saddles the country with more debt in 2 years than all other Presidents combined. Bush’s $168 BILLION one-time tax rebates in 2008 were followed by Obama’s $814 BILLION spending, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, the Detroit auto bailouts, and BILLIONS for green jobs. Oh, and ObamaCare which takes over 1/6th of the economy.
Dealing with entitlements is the elephant in the room the Democrats refuse to address. Ryan’s GOP budget does talk about the elephant in the room.
So, how best to rein in Medicare? One way not discussed so far: 1) restore the $575 BILLION which Obama cut. 2) Give seniors — those over 65 as well as those now 55 — the choice of “premium care†(individual choice) versus 15 faceless bureaucrats who congress cannot override.
Yes we’ve got serious spending problems to address. We must reduce the deficit as the number one priority. And do it while preserving freedom of choice, encouraging individual responsibility and allowing free markets to work.
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
Government now tells us what we can give away for free — paper bags if organizatoin is a nonprofit. And no more plastice bags …
Santa Clara County is joining San Francisco and other California cities and counties in banning plastic shopping bags.
Under the ordinance, proposed to take effect Jan. 1, retailers can sell recyclable paper bags for a minimum of 15 cents each, but cannot hand them out for free.
The ban would not apply to restaurants, fast-food establishments and nonprofit groups.
Now they want to tell us what we can GIVE away. Oh and what is so special about a non profit bag?
A bag is a bag…
FirenzeSage48@gmail.com
No more fire places and instead toast marshmellows over a heater, Santa goes down the windmill but at least no coal in your sticking.
The 12th annual “State of the Air” report found that despite a drop in the total number of days that Californians breathe smog and diesel fumes, the state remains awash in some of the dirtiest air in the nation.
In 2008, the regional air district passed a sweeping ordinance that bans burning of garbage, requires federally certified stoves or fireplace inserts in new homes and remodels, and prohibits wood burning in fireplaces and stoves when air quality hits harmful levels.
Officials estimate wood smoke accounted for about 30 percent of wintertime particle pollution in the nine-county region.
Now unless you are too stupid to get up in the morning you know where this is going. Roast your marshmallows over the solar panel. Hang your Christmas stockings by the solar heater. But thank goodness no more coal in your stocking.
FirenzeSage48@gmail.com
Do people have a fundamental right of privacy, i.e., “to be left alone”? Is that fundamental right of privacy violated when Obama by Executive Order requires disclosure of a person’s contributions to independent organizations in order to get a government contract?
In areas where privacy is constitutionally protected the government must meet the highest level of scrutiny, i.e., show a “compelling state interest”.
Obama justifies by saying that transparency is important. Yes The People want more transparency but it’s hardly “a compelling state interest”.
Obama’s Executive Order for disclosure smacks of intimidation.
The picture above of of Walden’s Pond. Where Walden was left alone …
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
“In what the White House calls a push for transparency, a pending executive order would require companies doing business with the federal government to disclose political contributions to independent groups, but would not place the same requirement on public employee unions or federal grant recipients that typically donate to Democrats.
Entitled the “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,†the order would implement parts of the DISCLOSE Act, which failed to get through Congress last year. The legislation sought to restrict campaign speech after the landmark Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of corporations and unions to donate to campaigns.White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed Monday that work is underway on the draft order, and linked the move to President Obama’s stated commitment to transparency.
“The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. . . . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.
Force Obama’s hand as to what he really thinks of senior citizens. Put back the $575 BILLION and send it to Obama for signing. If he does not sing that signals his true views of older citizens. And then seniors will know who to vote against in 2012.
Obama cut $575 BILLION for seniors using Medicare over the next 10 years. That $575 BILLION goes to other programs including a vast expansion of aid to the poor through Medicaid.
It’s time to ask congress to PUT BACK the $575 BILLION to Medicare.
If Obama refuses to sign a law returning $575 BILLION to Medicare so that system is funded “as we’ve known it” then senior citizens know what the President really thinks of older folks. And seniors will know who to vote against in 2012.
Next, offer seniors who use Medicare a choice: do you want to opt in to the Ryan plan or continue to keep Medicare?
The senior citizens I talk to want IN to the Ryan plan. Why?
The “choice” is a no brainer: what senior citizen wants a cost-cutting board of 15 unknown persons making all medical decisions (that congress cannot overturn) versus choice to pick their own private health plan? Huh?
The Ryan plan offers a choice of private health plans and a premium paid to the plan they choose. The amount paid is the equivalent of what Medicare is projected to spend under the Obama health care: $15,000 a year on average, more for the oldest and less for the youngest, all inflation adjusted.
The Ryan proposal includes a $7,800 annual medical savings account to help low income seniors out with out-of-pocket costs.
Since the President has deigned to show his birth certificate let’s force him to show his hand how he views senior citizens. Will Obama tell the 101 year old woman who wants a pace maker to take a pain pill (via the cost cutting decisions of his 15 appointees) or will Obama give her the choice to purchase a health plan that fits her individual needs?
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
A proposed $1.7 billion tax on sweetened beverages got a sour reception Monday at a key Assembly committee hearing.
It would have taxed sodas, energy drinks, sweet teas and other sugary beverages, directing the money toward youth education and obesity-prevention programs. The failure prompted such remarks as, “Sugar is dangerous to society, and is a huge part of childhood obesity. Taxing soda would have been akin to taxing cigarettes.”
And boats and cars and cable tv and cell phones and every itty bitty thing that walks or crawls across the government view.
written by FirenzeSage48@gmail.com
—————————————————————————
Other news about sugary drinks from across the county …. New York to ban low-income families from using food stamps to buy sugary drinks
New York announced plans to ban the use of food stamps to buy sugary drinks as it steps up its anti-obesity campaign. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor David Paterson have asked the U.S. government to ban the purchase of fizzy drinks and sweetened fruit drinks with the federal vouchers used by 42million low-income families.They called sugar-sweetened beverages the largest single contributor to the obesity epidemic.
What next from the government sugar police? Tax sugar donuts? Declare apple juice a ‘no no’ for toddlers? Limit sugary coffee drinks to adults over 18?
Time for Obama and his administration to admit addiction to spending — see his 2 recent budgets — and use the AA approach to controling this addiction. The govt has historically lived on 18% of GDP and no reason to increase it to 25 percent. Time to control spending addiction says Aptos psychologist.
Maybe Obama and his administration need the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) approach to manage government addiction to spending?
Those AA 12 steps include: Admit the problem. Ask a Higher Power to intervene. Ask for forgiveness. Regularly confess the problem and work the 12 Steps…
Obama seeks permanent spending binge of 24% of GDP compared to 18% historically. Ryan’s plan removes spending binge. Why is Washington having the debate?
See below article from the Wall Street Journal:
by John R. Taylor
‘Americans are clamoring for a fact-based debate about the budget, but the numbers they’re hearing from Washington are terribly confusing. Here’s an example: Speaking at a Facebook town hall meeting here on Wednesday, President Obama sometimes talked about saving $4 trillion, at other times $2 trillion, and he varied whether it was over 10 years or 12 years, never mentioning any one year.
“A simple chart, like the one nearby, would greatly clarify the debate. It shows total federal government spending year-by-year for the two decades starting in the year 2000. Spending is shown as a percentage of GDP, which is a sensible and quite common way to assess trends: When the percentage rises, government spending rises relative to total income or total goods and services produced in our economy.
“For the past decade, the chart shows the recent history of government spending. For the next decade—the window for the current budget—it shows three different spending visions for the future.
“Senior Economics Writer Steve Moore critiques the President’s series of speeches attacking GOP budget plans.
“The uppermost line shows outlays under the official budget submitted by Mr. Obama to Congress on Feb. 14. The lowest line shows the House Budget Resolution submitted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on April 5, while the third line shows year-by-year outlays I estimated from the 12-year totals in the new budget proposed by the president on April 13.
The chart clearly reveals a number of important facts that are not coming up in town hall meetings. Most obvious is the huge bulge in spending in the past few years. In 2000 spending was 18.2% of GDP. In 2007 it was 19.6%. But in the three years since 2009 it’s jumped to an average of 24.4%.
Second, and perhaps even more striking, the chart shows that Mr. Obama, in his budget submitted in February, proposed to make that spending binge permanent. Spending would still be more than 24% of GDP at the end of the budget window in 2021. The administration revealed its preference in the February budget for a much higher level of government spending than the 18.2% of GDP in 2000 or the 19.6% in 2007.
Third, the House budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) simply removes that spending binge—it gradually returns spending as a share of GDP back to a level seen only three years ago.
“When I show people this chart they ask why Washington is even having the debate. They say: If government agencies and programs functioned with 19% to 20% of GDP in 2007, why is it so hard for them to function with that percentage in 2021, when GDP will be substantially higher and with many opportunities for reforms and increased efficiencies? And if GDP and employment grow more quickly, as they would if private investment increased as a result of lower government spending and debt, then that 19% to 20% share of GDP could provide much more in the way of public goods.
Fourth, the chart shows that the second Obama administration budget, submitted a week after the Ryan House budget, is substantially different from the first administration budget. It is highly unusual for an administration to decide to submit a second budget, and the effect of this revision is to move the administration’s spending vision closer to that of the House. But it still leaves a big chunk of the spending binge in place.
Fifth, and perhaps most important for economic growth, the chart shows that the House budget effectively deals with the deficit and brings the debt down as a share of GDP without a tax increase. Under the current tax system, revenues as a share of GDP were 18.5% in 2007, so that the budget deficit was only 1.1% of GDP that year. With higher real incomes moving people into higher tax brackets, it is quite likely that under the current tax system revenues will be higher as a share of GDP when the economy fully recovers, perhaps in the 19% to 20% range.
This means that the House budget plan, with spending in the same range, approximately balances the budget with no increase in taxes. This is good news for economic growth. In contrast, balancing the first or even the second Obama budget requires substantial tax increases—more than the administration has yet to propose.
Mr. Taylor, a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of “Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged and Worsened the Financial Crisis” (Hoover Press, 2009).
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
More In Opinion Join the discussion 477 Comments, add yours More In Opinion »
EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder ReprintsShare: facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
Viadeo
Orkut
Fark
Reddit
del.icio.us
MySpace
A Rhode Island man has finally settled a warrant issued for a traffic violation in Massachusetts nearly four decades ago.
Michael Young, of Warwick, R.I., asked a judge in Attleboro District Court on Tuesday to dismiss a driving to endanger charge issued in September 1974.
The Sun Chronicle of Attleboro reports that Judge Daniel O’Shea noted that half the people in court had not even been born at the time of the traffic violation. He granted Young’s request, dismissing the case with payment of $100 in court costs. The court just had to get its lousy $100. The defendant should have demanded a jury trial unless they dropped the $100.
written by FirenzeSage48@gmail.com
———————————————————-
Some information about the judge:
Judge Daniel J. O’Shea is the new Attleboro District Court first justice. The full press release follows:
Lynda M. Connolly, Chief Justice for the District Court Department of the Massachusetts Trial Court, appointed Honorable Daniel J. O’Shea as First Justice of the Attleboro District Court, effective March 30, 2010.
Judge O’Shea graduated cum laude from the New England School of Law, and was admitted to practice in Massachusetts in 1990. Before his 2005 appointment to the District Court by Governor Mitt Romney, Judge O’Shea was an Administrative Judge and Senior Judge at the Department of Industrial Accidents. Other legal experience includes his time as a Staff Attorney for the Commonwealth Energy System and Adjunct Faculty positions at Suffolk University, Stonehill College, Anna Maria College, Quincy College and his alma mater Norwich University. He also serves on the Appellate Division of the District Court.
In making this appointment Chief Justice Connolly stated, “Judge O’Shea brings a solid record of achievement to the position of First Justice. He is bright, capable and hardworking, and he has extensive administrative experience. Judge O’Shea is an accomplished judge and is someone who will work collaboratively with the various entities in the community that interact with the Attleboro District Court.â€
The First Justices of the District Courts are selected from among the entire pool of District Court Judges by the Chief Justice of the District Court, subject to the approval of the Chief Justice for Administration and Management. First Justices serve five-year terms which are subject to renewal at the end of that period.
The Attleboro District Court serves the communities of Attleboro, Mansfield, North Attleboro and Norton and is located at 88 N. Main Street, Attleboro, MA 02703.
