State and Federal Legislation News | StateSurge.com » Jared Fallon

HJR 36: Restore justice to the Missouri tax code!

jared — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:23:06 +0000

For more information, see www.mofairtax.com

HJR 36, The MO Fair Tax plan, is a proposal to restore personal liberty, government transparency and fiscal accountability back into Missouri’s tax code.

It results in a real pay raise for residents, empowers the state’s economic engine and shifts the entire business system from taxation to customers and employees.

Ed Emery’s Fair Tax plan is a reform for the better, and truly seeks to restore Missouri’s competitiveness.

But what exactly is the MO Fair Tax?

HJR 36 seeks to ask the voters of Missouri to decide on a plan to replace the state income tax with a consumption (usage) tax. If put into law, the bill would raise the sales tax by 1.1% and broaden the scope of the tax to include personal and property and taxable services. The Missouri General Assembly would be allowed to make one adjustment to the rate to make it revenue/spending neutral.

Despite Emery’s plan to ensure Missouri’s economic growth, many people are questioning the timing of his proposal.

At a time when layoffs and fears of economic recession are commonplace, why would Missourians want to reform the state’s tax code?

The reason, sadly, is that Missouri is falling behind.

The tax system has become far too bulky and government transparency is wavering. Tax evasion is increasing while illegals avoid contributions. The complex tax code distracts from opportunity and discourages small businesses. Items are taxed every time they are sold, no matter how many times they are purchased and many services are not taxable. The solution? A usage tax that doesn’t fault individuals for working.

A single, revenue-neutral sales tax is the answer.

For proof, consider the Show-Me Institute’s report “Tennessee vs. Missouri: Taxes May Tip the Odds.” It states, “By any economic measure, Missouri dominated Tennessee at the end of World War II. Since then, Tennessee has reported faster economic growth and now has higher per-capita income than Missouri. With continued strong growth, the gap will just keep widening.”

The difference between the two states? Tennessee doesn’t have a state income tax.

The answer is the MO Fair Tax.

Video: 95% of Americans Want Marijuana Legalized

jared — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:28:39 +0000

Tom Ammiano’s plan to legalize marijuana in the state of California is turning heads around the nation. The Assemblymen seeks to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.”

Proponents of the bill claim that aside from lack of substantial health concerns, the plan would help provide $1 billion per year in much-needed state revenue. In addition, the bill would bring down overall costs for law enforcement, while helping officials focus on more important priorities.

Opponents say that legalizing pot is socially dangerous largely due to its’ suspected reputation as a “gateway drug.” In addition, many highly respectable institutes have conducted studies about the health effects from smoking cannabis and the results are not positive.

Either way, the public has spoken and according to a recent poll conducted by CNN, 95% of Americans now are in favor of marijuana being legalized. See:

H.R.1 Passes – Obamas Stimulus Package Moving Fast

jared — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:54:34 +0000

The 111th session of Congress has started kicked off 2009 with hot and heavy activity. With President Obama in office barely 1 week and over 337,000 American jobs lost since the financial crisis began, lawmakers are desperately scrambling to help prevent America’s recession from becoming a depression.

The main bill on the table that’s turning heads around the nation is H.R.1 – the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009. The bill, sponsored by David Obey (D-WI), was passed by the House as expected on Tuesday January 27. H.R.1 is the economic stimulus bill as promised by President Obama and touted by House Democratic Leadership, leading the way for the “Change we Need”. The Senate’s version of the bill, S.1, is anticipated to be proposed as soon as possible, aimed to receive President Obama’s signature by the end of February. The official text for H.R.1 can be viewed here.

H.R.1 seeks to make “supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization…”.
The 647 page bill is so formidable at first glance that entire websites have been created simply to better understand the legislation. One such website is ReadTheStimulus.org, a seemingly hastily developed cite that is sponsored by Republican and Libertarian oriented organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

This major economic stimulus bill is the bread and butter of President Obama’s promise for change – and to Democratic Leadership’s delight has moved with incredible speed, riding upon the momentum to give the economy the boost it needs in order to keep Americans afloat. Momentum for this change can be seen by testimonies such as Congresswoman Lee (D-CA) in the video at the bottom of this posting.

Opponents of the bill, such as Dick Armey’s Freedomworks, believe that such a plan is destined to set a permanent precedence, following the same pattern of some of the socialist-oriented programs from the New Deal. Furthermore, the current $850 billion being requested for the stimulus package will cause the Federal Government to borrow one-third of its current budget, to the tune of almost 10 percent of GDP. Such concerns are deepened by somewhat vague allocation terms as outlined in H.R.1, such as “infrastructure spending”, worrying fiscal conservatives for an expected surge in pork projects.

In order to keep track of developments, updates, and analysis, make sure to check back with State Surge frequently – How Do You Keep Up?

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

jared — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:17:05 +0000

Also see:

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Lithuania: Fast-Facts and Hot Legislation

(Make sure to turn up your volume)

Lithuania: Fast Facts and Hot Legislation

jared — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:16:57 +0000

The fascinating country of Lithuania is not very well known by Americans despite the fact that it has endured many hardships in the pursuit of democracy. This resilient nation that once was the largest country on the European continent eventually became the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence. As a deeply historical, excitingly cultural, and surprisingly interesting Northern Baltic state, it is certainly worth finding more about.

Also see:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Country Profile: The Republic of Lithuania

Population: 3,600,000 (less than half of New York City’s)
Size: Roughly that of West Virginia (America’s 9^th smallest state)
Major Religions: Roman Catholic by far, #2 Orthodox
Languages: Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish
Per capita GDP: $16,800
One of the fastest growing countries in the world, with a GDP growth rate of 8.8% in 2007
Joined both NATO and the EU in 2004
Prior to EU membership, Russia was the key economic and political driver of this northern Baltic state

Fast Facts:

In the 14th century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe
Lithuania was the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence
Home to the only museum of devils in Europe
Largest collection of Amber (the Gold of the Baltics) in the world
Nearly every midsized-large city within the country holds an annual jazz festival
The largest jazz fast is the countries’ second largest city and culture capitol: Kaunas
Lithuania has more UNESCO World Heritage points than Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldova, Slovenia, Albania, Bosnia, Cyprus, and Georgia

Reflection: Obamas 1st foreign policy faux pas

jared — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:48:18 +0000

How absurd confused can a nation be? To allow a person who, when reflecting upon their very first major foreign policy experience, lied through their teeth in an attempt to have a worthwhile story to tell voters, become the Secretary of State.The very essence of the decision should be enough to make one nauseous, and yet whenever one brings up the occasional “misunderstandings” on the part of Hilary Clinton listeners tend to shrug their shoulders and cavalierly say, “It’s just politics” or, “she is a bright lady and did what needed to be done.” If Obama really wants the change he touted for 21 months – if the American public truly wants reform, why in the world would we put up with such a foolish decision?

In a biographical sense, there is no doubt that Hilary is known for having her chief energies focused on domestic issues. The amount of candidates with far less political strings attached that would have been much more qualified for the position are off the charts – and yet Obama (?) decides to put his former opponent in charge of international affairs at one of the most pivotal times in US history. We are at a time that demands widespread, foundational change. We haven’t even begun to see the ramifications from a heavily criticized war for which the current US president says he was “unprepared” for entering. We are about to deal with a new wave of financial problems with a breadth and depth never experienced before – as some of our largest trading partners are beginning to turn their policies towards a more regional, free trade agreement focus. More Americans should be asking, “Why Hilary?” Why someone who is the exact opposite of the “change” that was promised to so many Americans…and the world.

If you are disagreeing with this “rant”, with this commentary – I apologize. I am simply taking a stand that too few Americans do for fear of sounding too strong, or due to being concerned about politically correct speech. But what is obvious (and not to strong to state) is if the former First Lady’s most significant foreign policy experience was surrounded and infused by lies, and then after serving in the New York Senate has been put in charge of the nation’s international affairs, there are serious questions that are begging to be asked.

Where is accountability in our system? On a lesser note, how could someone with such a great capability to lie with no apparent remorse be continually allowed to represent our people? To represent our nation on the world stage?

Yes, Hilary is an amazingly bright lady. She was one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the US and earned more money than her husband ever did until his presidency – before she even stepped into the political spotlight. Yet, since when has intelligence and cunningness ever excused one from even the most primitive form of accountability? What happened to the days when Americans cared about the honesty and integrity of those that are chosen to represent us?

If you do not recall, Hilary initially stated she had no intentions of running for president. After her opponent won the position she had “surprisingly” so desperately desired, she said her talents were needed in the Senate to help back the democrats in Washington and that’s were intentions laid. The next thing you know she is offered one of the most intrinsic positions in one of the most significant areas of policy at one of the most direly important time periods in US history. Am I not the only one to point to these oddities?

America, it is time to start demanding honest leaders. It is time to stop rewarding those that use words and influence for no greater benefit other than themselves. The ideals of servitude seem to no longer create any echo of integrity down Congress’ hall. Apparently, the candidate most of the world has supported does not have strong reservations about the bullet-dodging, Bosnia-saving, and fearless Hilary Clinton – is this the change we voted for?

The Honest IL Governors Game Plan for Obamas Seat

jared — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:26:46 +0000

Illinois’ Governor Rod Blagojevich and chief of staff John Harris are now under investigation for allegedly trying to sell Obama’s vacant seat. In return, the 52 year old Blagojevich was reportedly looking for a cushy job (tips glady accepted) within the new administration. According to the Associated Press, Blagojevich’s game plan can clearly be seen when viewing some of the reported comments taken from various wiretaps.

When viewing the sheer amount of pending proposals in the Illinois legislature, the disappointing slap in the face for those who backed Blagojevich and worked on various bills with the Governor will create waves of change that will be felt throughout the Land of Lincoln, if not the entire country.

According to the AP, Blagojevich’s game plan was:

A HARD BARGAIN. On Nov. 3, Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.”

LANDING WELL. On Nov. 5, while discussing his authority to name Obama’s replacement, Blagojevich said Obama could use his influence to name the governor to a lucrative spot with a private foundation. Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’ve got this thing and it’s — golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for — nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”

A RESISTANT OBAMA. On Nov. 11, during a conversation with Harris, Blagojevich said he knew Obama wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. — them.”

SIGNS OF STRUGGLE. On Nov. 12, during a two-hour telephone conversation with various people, Blagojevich talked about securing high-paying jobs for him and his wife in exchange for the Senate seat. He said he is “struggling” financially and does “not want to be governor for the next two years.” Blagojevich said advisers are telling him he has to “suck it up” for two years and give this ” — Obama his senator. — him. For nothing? — him.”

THREE CRITERIA. On Nov. 12, Blagojevich told Harris his decision about the open Senate seat would be based on three criteria in the following order of importance: “Our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that. Legal. Personal. Political.”

TALKING OF MONEY. On Thursday, Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that if Senate Candidate 5 wanted to be appointed to Obama’s seat, the candidate should follow through on promises to raise money for Blagojevich. “Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now . . . right now . . . and we gotta see it. You understand?” But Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?”

Video: Rod Blagojevich welcomes wiretapping

jared — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:10:14 +0000

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is man with many worldly words and experiences…but yet his personal world is one with a very different view than most (especially the Chicago Tribune). According to Blagojevich whatever he says is lawful and the things he’s interested in doing is always lawful….always. This godsend for the Land of Lincoln feels that only sunshine hangs over his governorly body, to help him conduct his rightful duties.

Blagojevich Quotes to Remember:

“I don’t believe there is any cloud that hangs over me. I think there’s nothing but sunshine hanging over me.” - When a Chicago Tribune reporter questioned “Do you think the cloud that hangs over you is going to taint your pick?”

It sounds like if Blagojevich does end up doing time at least he can write the latest top-40’s hits. I think his first piece should be a cross between John Denver’s “Sunshine on my shoulder’s makes me happy” and Johnny Cash’s rendition of “You Are My Sunshine”.

“…and by the way I should say if anybody wants to tape my conversations go right ahead –feel free to do it. I appreciate anybody who wants to tape me openly and notoriously and those who feel like they want to sneakily and wear taping devices I would remind them that it kinda smells like Nixon and Watergate. But I don’t care whether you tape me privately or publicly.”

For a person with such a broad vocabulary, (“Fire those fuckers… If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em”) Blagojevich sure is of the willing sort, expressing complex ideas with simplistic words.

“I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful and the things I’m interested in doing are always lawful and if there any things like that out there what you’ll hear is a governor who tirelessly and endlessly figures out ways to help average ordinary working people.”

After such a moving statement I wonder why Blagojevich didn’t run for president. He’d have my vote. Even if convicted, given that he gets out in time, he’d still be a better pick than Palin for 2012.

Blagojevichs Arrest: So much for IL Ethics Proposals

jared — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:44:21 +0000

The Land of Lincoln not only is having a hard time replacing president-elect Obama’s heavily sought after district, but may very well need a new governor as well. Recently, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, along with chief of staff John Harris, has been allegedly trying to sell Obama’s vacant seat. In return, 52 year old Blagojevich was reportedly looking for either money or a cushy job within the new administration. US Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald stated on December 10, 2008 “The Senate seat, as recently as days ago, seemed to be on the verge of being auctioned off”. Keeping in tune with the state’s motto, Fitzgerald said “The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave.” The situation does not look good for the governor.

Blagojevich has already been under investigation for at least three years for alleged hiring fraud – again using his supposed auctioning skills for more supposed bribes. Perhaps he should switch careers to auctioning; for most people the idea of being under investigation should have already have one concerned about the remote possibility of having wiretaps in place. If Blagojevich were to be convicted and imprisoned for the charge of “Conspiracy to commit fraud”, carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years time, he would become the 4th Illinois Governor within the past four decades to go to prison.

As the Illinois government and prosecutors work through the entangled political web Blagojevich has woven, no matter what the results are political uproar has occurred within Obama’s state. Clearly, the mess is a sticky one – even to the point of Obama working is hardest to distance himself from Blagojevich amidst cabinet selections and the financial crisis. Legislators involved in the supposed scandal will also be facing serious measures of investigation, as various candidates were reportedly sighted by Blagojevich as needing to follow through on promises to raise money for him, as recorded by some of Blagojevich’s statements to advisers such as, “Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now…right now…and we gotta see it. You understand?”

Effective legislators will have a hard time getting the incredibly wide amount of proposals currently pending in the state’s legislature. Such proposals include major ethics reforms – ironically the main platform Blagojevich ran on during his campaign for governorship – targeting campaign finance restrictions and deceptive business practices and consumer fraud proposals. Whether or not Blagojevich will resign or the Illinois Senate Leaders and House decide to strip him of his title only time will tell. But no matter what happens to Rod’s future career, his timeless quote, as reported from The Economist will remain with me:

The 5 Worst State Capitol Buildings

jared — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:46:41 +0000

The designs of state capitol buildings are not discussed as much they ought to be but are interesting none-the-less. The halls that our elected officials work within can be as unique as the very state they propose and argue legislation for. After reviewing the 50 state’s capital buildings it is clear that the average American simply does not know enough about these arguably most influential buildings located in every state.

Over the next few weeks you will be able to get a quality review at the most charming, the worst of the worst, and the most unique capital buildings around. Additionally, we will be covering the most intimidating capitols and the buildings that are most similar (enough to convince one to believe that a team of architects coauthored Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.)

The 5 Worst State Capitol Buildings

#5: Bismarck, North Dakota

Yes, I am positive this is not a branch of the IRS. Yes, it looks like thousands of other buildings. Yes North Dakota, at least stick a dome on top of the building.

#4: Santé Fe, New Mexico

The first thing that comes to mind when seeing this building is the headquarters for Taco Johns. Despite the fact that La Quinta Inn may be popular in some parts of the US, it is interesting to see the hotel chain designer’s talents be utilized for a state capitol building.

#3: Salem, Oregon

For such a forward thinking state Oregon’s government is confused. It appears that they definitely believe that the legislative branch of government should follow the Fed’s stone-cold appearance. I believe many people can imagine being greeted by heavily armed guards at the door.

#2: Honolulu, Hawaii

There are a minimum of 10 higher education buildings that looks more impressive than this tropical paradise for legislators. If tourists didn’t know any better they could easily mistake the building for a tourist center or entrance to a all inclusive resort.

#1: Juneau, Alaska

Many things come to mind when one first sees this building. An ancient Social Security office building, an elementary school, a once-famous dance school in East New York…but this is, in all honesty, Alaska’s capital building.

A 50 hour workweek for convicted felons?

jared — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:44:31 +0000

Nevada Senator John Ensign has a true love/hate relationship with convicted felons. Within the same proposal, he wishes to improve federal felon’s job training and life skills preparation while requiring them to work a minimum of 20 percent more than the average American. Despite the fact that a 50 hour work week is generally not viewed favorably, the irony of Ensign’s Senate Bill 3695 is that if Congress decides to hold hearings for the proposal he is likely to see rapid pace due to lack of attendance. His 22 page proposal is currently in Committee on the Judiciary, and is certain to liven up the debates on felon’s work protocol.

When reading through the proposal, it is clear that Ensign sees the federal work system as becoming a well-oiled machine, including provisions “to provide products and services that are market quality and competitively priced”. John’s restructuring approach offers an intriguing approach: “We help you by improving work standards, making you work a hell of a lot, and then if you ever get out of here you should find your vocational and life skills greatly improved”. Personally, I like Ensign’s approach. If it were to pass, let’s just hope for John’s benefit that he never ends up becoming a convicted felon – I wonder why Ted Stevens didn’t cosponsor the bill.

Kerrys solution for a pitifully failing rail system

jared — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:59:45 +0000

America’s passenger rail system is failing. For such a vast nation that can be considered the Saudi Arabia of coal potential, it is surprising that the “largest and most technologically powerful economy” in the world has dreadfully fallen behind nearly all of the world’s most advanced economies. It is far too common to find questions similar to freelance writer Ben Jervey’s: “Europe and Asia have figured it out, so why is the American rail system still so unspeakably awful?” Despite the fact that gas prices are at an amazingly low point, most experts agree that this is most likely the last time Americans will see such prices. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) believes he is about to start a revolution for change – a long-time-needed proposal known as S.3700.

According to Kerry, there are a host of problems that need to be addressed. The most immediate is lost efficiency due to widespread highway congestion. According to his findings, this “…congestion, which is increasing every year, annually costs our Nation’s economy $78,000,000,000, 2,900,000,000 gallons of wasted fuel, and 4,200,000,000 lost hours of productivity.” When considering that many EU nations spend nearly 20 times more than the US on intercity rail, one should question why policymakers wouldn’t wish to address such a massive structural imbalance. Kerry considers the environment to be the other most significant reason for change.

“Rail travel could potentially reduce the effect of greenhouse gas emissions generated by travel between cities that are between 100 and 500 miles apart… by 80 percent with airplanes…and by 21 percent compared with automobiles.” Additionally, railroad systems are statistically less dangerous in terms of fatalities than automobiles – estimates claim railway use to be as much as 96% percent safer. After reviewing said findings in S.3700, most Americans would be hard put to offer quality arguments against such a proposal.

Kerry seeks to establish the “Office of High Speed Passenger Rail”, which would reside under the Federal Railroad Administration. The office would be responsible for consulting with the Secretary of Transportation to determine the financing of such a large proposal. Despite the fact that Kerry’s proposal is extremely vague (i.e. lack of specified location, guarantee of technological standards) the Massachusetts Senator wishes to maintain two hefty spending limits: $10 billion for “super high-speed intercity rail facility bonds” and $5.4 billion for “rail infrastructure bonds” – leaning on a multi-faceted strategy of utilizing free market innovation and government panel findings. To review the specific provisions, follow this link.

Yes, these numbers are extremely high – especially as America is facing the worst unemployment numbers in nearly three decades, but drastic problems call for drastic solutions. America’s railway system will need to be addressed sooner rather than later, and would most beneficially be addressed before fuel prices spike once again and being to create financial panic among such an automobile-dependent nation. Even though Americans have never been too fond of public transport, an updated, technologically advanced, and dedicated railway system would not only help provide a stronger American infrastructural backbone, but would also produce many short term benefits in terms of American productivity and air quality.

US Army announces $50 million video game investment

jared — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:59:28 +0000

At a time when many parents are concerned about the widespread and increasing amount of video game use, a major state-sponsored video game initiative is about to take place. Beginning in 2010, the US Army plans to pour $50 million dollars into developing battlefield simulation videogames in order to help prepare troops for combat. The idea behind such a program is certainly nothing new, but when considering the sheer amount of investment the Army is going to make, it is certain that many companies within the industry are doing back flips with the increased potential for private contracts for merely making shooting your cyber enemies as life-like as possible.

Currently, there is a lot of support in the House to conduct research initiatives into the health affects video games have on children. Such video game legislation is largely viewed as polar opposites to military policies like these. Such bills include Joe Baca’s H.R.2958, a bill that has support from many legislators who feel there is far too heavy an imbalance favoring first-person shooter and violence-based games. Furthermore, many parents advocate groups are pushing bills to tighten industry standards for video game ratings and their lure to teens – most notably including games that often are criticized for encouraging violence as a solution for domestic issues. For advocates in this realm, the $50 million dollar initiative is seen as an extreme set-back for these efforts, only strengthening the mind frame of American children to incorporate such violent games into their everyday lives.

A Refreshing Accountability Proposal From Hilary

jared — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:13:55 +0000

Hilary Clinton, the heavily rumored Secretary of State-to-be, is often criticized for pursuing government contracts based on apparent self interests often shared with former President Clinton. The criticism often aimed at the Clinton family can commonly be mirrored in the Republican Party with major oil and defense contracts in Iraq for companies such as Cheney’s Halliburton. Despite the fact that in my opinion Hilary Clinton is one of the most self-serving and troubling legislators around, she seems to be making strides to reduce the overall amount of the lack of accountability the Federal contracting process typically brings around.

Senator Clinton’s S.3139 is a comprehensive plan currently being debated that aims reform the private contracting affairs of the Federal government. Despite the fact that many find Clinton one of the least likely candidates to pursue more government transparency in such a process, the former First Lady truly is a smart women and hit on many key points that lack accountability within the system. S.3139 is broken into three distinct sections: Accountability for Contractors, Competition and Transparency, and Building a Better Federal Government Workforce.

Accountability for Contractors

Clinton aims to lay provisions to prohibit allocating government contracts to any corporations “purposefully organized in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction” in order to avoid Federal taxes obligations. Despite the fact that the protocol outlined under this Sec. 101 proposal relies a little too heavy on IRS “decision”-making capabilities, it does make efforts towards preventing US companies from their current status of practically being awarded for relocating into cheaper, less-taxed developing countries in order to gain proximity to markets with more potential for government contracts.

Other provisions under this division include tightening financial reporting certifications and strengthening statues in order to reduce personal interests of those directly affected by the creation of defense contracts. These provisions certainly would make the likelihood of acts similar to Cheney’s involvement with Halliburton much more difficult than was experienced recently by the contract-happy vice president. The main difficulty Clinton will face under these provisions lies within the definitions of terms like “offshore secrecy jurisdiction” and “controlled group of entities”. In order to view these plans, please click here to access the PDF file containing Hilary’s plan.

Competition and Transparency

After careful review of Hilary’s plan for accountability, I believe the ideas outlined in this section of the bill prove to be the most useful to the American public. The main plan proposed here is to create a database containing all Federal records for federal contracts and grants. The database would emphasize information gathered on Federal personnel either aiming to advance proposed contracts and to offer insight into such official’s backgrounds, thereby allowing the Accountability Office to more easily investigate the personal influence or motivation that federal personnel may have in establishing contracts, no matter what type of contract is being reviewed.

Unfortunately, Clinton does not outline protocol to make such a database easily accessible by the public, but it does help offer more of an option in the accountability and tracking of often-cumbersome Federal contracts. Additionally, a database as significant as this would help judicial research initiatives to become much more efficient when reviewing the legality of Federal contracts along with court cases previous Supreme Court decisions.

Building a Better Federal Government Workforce

The last provision of the bill has a title that is slightly misleading. This part of Hilary’s plan seeks to have the Inspector General of the DOD to list the inherent government functions and objectives the government has in maintaining private contracts. The bill then seeks to provide “incremental staffing requirements” in the attempt to prevent future private contracts from being established without fulfilling improved requirements and lining up “conflicts of interest” by government personnel.

Its time to start supporting Americas bravest volunteers

jared — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:31:08 +0000

One of the nation’s most prized groups of volunteers is increasingly being administratively challenged, despite the fact that they continue to risk their lives for the pure benefit of the American public. Volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personnel truly are one of America’s most valuable assets, both in terms of bravery and economics. Unfortunately, with increasingly difficult financial times, their numbers are faltering.

“There are currently 800,000 volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personal in the United States…” . as quoted by Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT). At first glance, this may seem like a questionably significant number, however the economic benefit these brave citizens provide are staggering. According to findings reported in S.3676, one of Sander’s currently pending bills, “the national financial savings resulting from volunteer firefighting and emergency medical services has been calculated at more than $37,000,000,000 each year.” Yes, those figures are in billions, not millions, of dollars annually.

These brave personnel put their lives on the line year after year, emergency after emergency, and are increasingly being challenged in to continue their services for the sheer benefit of the American public. Unfortunately, according to the CATO Institute, the number of volunteer firefighters is diminishing at an increasingly rapid date. One suspected reason for the reportedly diminishing numbers is the criticized recent OSHA regulations – a series of questionable attempts that many find more successful in deterring volunteers than increasing safety. Regardless of the reason, these vital volunteers are an intricate part of the US’ public safety network, and are leading some to believe that more incentives must be created in order to retain such volunteers. Senator Sanders is one of them.

Sander’s S.3676 outlines a comprehensive plan to “support the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personnel” in the Unites States. The proposal is not a new idea, following many local government’s actions to provide financial incentives, ranging from tuition breaks to retirement assistance packages. Senator’s strategy can be considered a multi-tier approach, allocating federal money to be distributed among local governments to then pass on the financial incentives in any form they see fit, within reason. Sander’s outlines 6 primary forms: retirement benefits, reimbursement for travel and training, health insurance assistance, life insurance, tuition or loan forgiveness, and/or tax reductions. To view Sander’s proposal, click here. Sander’s should be applauded for his efforts to ensure we keep these valuable, life-risking volunteers engaged. Despite the fact that our government continues to drive up taxes more and more, this proposal very well may be worth cutting back a pork project or two.

An ill conceived effort for an automaker bailout appetizer

jared — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:57:44 +0000

US automakers have been falling behind foreign competitors at an increasingly rapid rate over the past few years. Once the Japanese engineering genius Toyota was able to conquer the SUV/Truck market in the states Detroit’s Big Three began to see drastic decreases in sales, customer loyalty, and ever-needed funding for a host of projects. These issues of concern include greatly needed energy-efficient technology research and development (such as hybrid or renewable fuels) and increasing numbers of US employee layoffs, early retirement packages, and decreased healthcare benefits. At a time when the looming financial crisis is threatening the prosperity of the world’s economic growth and a host of US industries, one US legislator is seeking to throw taxpayer money at encouraging people to buy automobiles made within the US.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has a bill currently pending in its respective committee as of last Friday “To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a one-time, $1,500 credit against income tax for an automobile manufactured in the United States.” H.R.7303’s official title is the “Consumer and Automotive Recovery Act of 2008”. The idea behind the proposal is along the same vein of the massive amounts of government bailouts requested since Mac and Mae, much like the $50 billion in loans Detroit is asking Congress to provide. Louie’s proposal is strong in good-natured intent, but only achieves three primary goals: helping US consumers in the short run, helping ALL automaker companies that manufacture within the US, and offering partial assistance in the preservation of a small percentage of auto manufacturer’s American employees. Furthermore, much like Bush’s stimulus pack, the bill would be funded merely by taking money away from Americans in order to reward the Americans that choose to spend their money on a new vehicle.

As Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrystler continue to lead the initaive for the proposed bailout one should question the effect such a proposal would have that offers no safeguards for the $1,500 tax credit to be used for the purchase of foreign companies manufacturing in the US. The two plants that come to mind immediately is Toyota’s hyper-green 2,000 employee San Antonio plant or the Japanese company’s 7,000 employee plant located in Georgetown, Kentucky. While Louie’s efforts would help ensure the American workers’ jobs within such plants, it would be counter-intuitive as to the progress and assistance that US auto manufacturers truly are need of in today’s increasingly hostile climate.

At this point, greater economic benefit would be seen by redirecting our collective efforts on helping regain the once-famous Detroit company supremacy companies such as Ford and GM once had. While Gohmert’s idea may be well intended, such policies should be aimed more towards increasing US companies’ research, development, and overall competiveness before they begin supplying unneeded momentum for foreign automakers.

What Rebels Murders of Chinese in Darfur Means for the US

jared — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:31:09 +0000

Recent announcement of Darfur rebels killing at least 3 Chinese oil workers on October 29 is increasing interest as to what will be China’s next move in regards to the tragic Darfur Conflict. The recent rebel activity is putting China in somewhat of a difficult position, balancing its personal increasing energy needs with criticism of suspected Sudanese government funding/sponsorship from nations around the world. China thus far has seen the act as a form of terrorism, again subtly undermining US accusations as to why the Chinese government got involved with the crisis in the first place.

There is a group of pending pieces of US legislation that may begin to start seeing increased activity, currently being stalled by Election Day results and overall lack of public interest in the tragedies that continue to occur within the region. One such bill is H.RES.422 (formerly S.RES203), calling on the Chinese government to use its “unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan.” Although in the past the resolutions calling nations to value US/UN human rights violations vs. energy and economic interests have rarely if ever worked, the resolution would be seen in positive light from a US policy perspective. The last wave of legislation with ambitions to improve the Darfur situation failed miserably, as President Bush attended the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

After the close of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing many legislators were disappointed in Bush’s wide attendance of the games, virtually ignoring resolutions calling for presidential abstinence from either the opening ceremony or boycotting the games altogether in order to coax the China to cease various actions with the Sudanese government. Obviously none of the resolutions worked and legislatures became increasingly acknowledging of the fact that the US simply is too hesitant to take any strong actions against Chinese intervention abroad – even to the point of violating precedents concerning supporting fellow democracies from communist adversaries (such as the case with Taiwan).

Major lobby ethics proposal: Obama backed in Senate

jared — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:22:57 +0000

The field of lobbying is one of the most illustrious and controversial toics in the realm of public policy influence and reform-drivers. Coming from the president elect who left the nation’s most expensive campaign in history with an extra $85 million on hand, it is no surprise that he would choose to detach himself from any possible accusations of heavy lobby influence – at least at the beginning of his world-watched entrance. President Elect Obama announced on November 12 his strict ethics rules, barring federal lobbyists from making any sort of donation to his inaugural events – yet again another history-making move from the former Illinois Senator. Despite the fact that Obama is the one in the limelight in the area of lobbyist ethics reform proposals, there is currently a major proposal pending in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to make a much more meaningful, widespread impact along the same lines. Not surprisingly, Obama is one of the bill’s cosponsors.

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) outlines his proposal to “provide greater transparency in the legislation process” with S.230. The “Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007” revises a long list of protocol and standards for legislative branch or executive branch officials and lobbyists alike – being one of the only major outstanding proposals of its kind. In terms of lobbyist protocol reform, S.230 has 3 major provisions:

The requirement of lobbyists to report the ticket prices they buy for elected officials to events at the highest possible prices
The prevention of lobbyists to pay for any sort of conference, meeting, or retreat for an elected official
The banning of any means to provide transportation, lodging, and/or any travel assistance – perhaps the most lobbyist-debilitating portion of the bill.

Other provisions of the bill include reforms in both the deadlines and requirements for reporting contributions, strengthening guidelines for information intended to be made public over the net, and increasing the penalties for breaking both proposed reforms and outstanding ethics rules. Partially considering that Obama now has bigger policies to tackle, it is unlikely that this senate bill will get very much media attention, but it is nice to see seemingly honest intentions for ethics reforms reflected in a new position that is consist with voting records past. The parties in opposition for any proposals of this type are destined to get K Street heavy-hitters and large financial backing from lobbyists around the nation, if not the world. The danger is such a proposal is that the goal is to lobby against lobbying – attacking the offense offensively and trying to “beat them” at their own game. It is a daring move for an elected official, and one that, at the very least, should some level of respect for Feingold.

Regardless of your personal opinions on lobbyist’s influence in the political realm, one thing that is undisputable is that the field has grown immeasurably over the past 10 years, and that clearly there are strong benefits for an entity from having a strong, power-packed lobbying team. It is estimated that the amount of lobbyists in Washington since 2000 has more than doubled – bringing the total number of registered lobbyists to far over 35,000 (compared to only 435 Federal Representatives and Senators;a 1-to-65 ratio minimum). The starting salaries for former White House and elected officials that sign on as lobbyists start at $300,000 – quite a sum for moving your workplace only a few blocks away. Personal feelings towards contract lobbyists aside, it is indisputable that the increase in both demand and salaries points to a shift in the framework of which corporation/Capitol Hill interaction operates.

According to lobby industry officials the field in the 1990’s was largely reactive – based on waiting for the most recent proposals to echo the halls of the Capitol. Recently, the situation has become far more pre-emptive (and profitable) as corporations have discovered just how much sway they can exercise by seeking to infuse influence ahead of time. The shift has caused some current lobbyists, such as former Clinton lobbyist and current contract lobbyist Patrick Griffin to make such bold claims such as “They (corporations) see that they can win things, that there’s something to be gained. Washington has become a profit center.” The shift has been so monumental that even officials on the Hill have been pressed to reform their tactics. Since 2000, in an average 4 year span Federal expenditures on lobbying have increased by 30%.

The situation is lending itself towards greatly diminishing trust between the general public and elected officials. The problems are bound to get worse, as repealing both heavy expenditure projects and recently created trends will prove to be much more difficult than they were to be initially introduced. Daring proposals such as S.230 are a bold risk for elected officials – introducing a two-pronged attack at both elected officials and those paid to provide great efforts towards the influence of such officials.

Whether or not Feingold will find success I cannot predict, but I do know one thing: when there are enough registered lobbyists in Washington to outnumber the official count of all Senators and Representatives by a factor of 65, there is a serious breakdown in the accountability of the system. If a Federal Senator (average salary: $165,000) was put in one room with 65 federal lobbyists (average salary: $300,000), it is a sure bet that no human on earth would have an easy time staying true to what’s best for the general public, much less the humble goal of being a public servant.

Am I saying that lobbyists are evil? No. Am I trying to make the point that we have a failed political structure with too few restrictions? Not necessarily. What I am saying is if I was locked in a door with 65 other people representing far over $19 million and a both a wide mix of companies and industries, I would find doing my job fairly, for the best outcome of the public, very, very, very challenging.

A proposal to make unborn children treated as humanely as animals

jared — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:48:52 +0000

The war on abortion seems to be never ending, having 2 stark opposition groups that work tirelessly to either fight as the Pro-Choice or the Pro-Life reformists. After so many years of rhetoric and seemingly unchanging lines of argumentation, a group of 120 Congress members are taking a more unique approach to battling, or as the bill states, “informing” mothers of the implications of abortion. Christopher Smith’s (R-NJ) House Resolution 3442 takes a slightly different spin than the average anti-abortion bill (and the long track record of Smith’s abortion efforts), calling his proposal the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2007”.

In the 22 page long bill Congress outlines a series of findings to help make the case for mothers being properly informed of the scientific (albeit somewhat one-sided) facts of unborn children. Select findings from the bill are as follows:

It has been found that after 20 weeks after fertilization,

An unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain
Unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain
An unborn child may experience substantial pain even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia
Medical Science is capable of reducing such pain through the administration of anesthesia or other pain –reducing drugs directly to the unborn child

The bill’s foundation is that in review of current legislation, animals are treated better than unborn children, despite the fact that they are both capable of responding to harsh stimuli sensation. H.R.3442 makes the case rather compellingly by offering a look into the Human Slaughter Act of 1958 that requires “humane” treatment in reference to handling or slaughtering animals. This means that the animal must either be killed by a direct shot or blow or be given a method to lose consciousness before the animal is slaughtered. Furthermore, the bill provides a look into the Animal Wellness Act, outlining provisions for minimalistic pain and overall treatment conducted after the animal has been tranquilized.

The overall tone of the bill creates the notion that the most common methods of abortion after during or after the 20 week mark are inhumane and can torture the organism with substantial pain. Such methods include “…dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull…(and/or sucking) the child’s brains out before completing the delivery of the dead infant”. The bill is unique in that it does not necessarily make the claim that abortion is a method to kill children or that the organism is not a human until is completely born, but rather that we should have the same standards of treatment for unborn children as we do animals.

The proposed call to action for the bill begins on page 8, and would require the doctor administering the abortion to provide many pieces of information, with the most important factors including:

The age of the unborn child
A Department of Health and Services-approved “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure”, outlining the use of pain-relieving drugs, description of risks, and the administration of anesthesia, and a
“Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form”

The approach of the bill merely attempts to have the parents making the decision be informed of the “substantial pain” involved for the most prominent procedures, as well as the risk of administering techniques to ensure that the unborn child receive less pain. To see the exact provisions of the bill which include details as to what content is required in the brochures, timelines, and distribution of information, follow this link.

Whether or not you personally believe in such a proposal, Senator Smith does outline a strong case for reform requiring that unborn children be given, at least, the same treatment that animals are given in the event that parents do indeed choose to have an abortion. The bill certainly is worth review and, at the very least, offers a more middle-of-the-road call to action than the average pro/con abortion groups commonly support.

Will states rights to charge eTax be reformed?

jared — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:38:52 +0000

Back in 2008, many journalists’ predicted that other states would start following New York/Amazon’s decision to start charging tax for all citizens within the state ordering from Amazon.com, which, in turn, would lead to possible Federal taxes for such purchases. New York’s policy began on June 1 of this year and marks the supposed end of tax-free e-commerce – a movement that began taking full momentum at the beginning of the year. The approach for states’ efforts for charging an e-tax has been proposed and debated over the two most recent National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and has been reviewed with favor from influential people such as Neal Olsten, federal affairs counsel for NCSL. When asked about an pro e-commerce tax policies Olsten was quoted saying “We’ve heard encouraging words from the Democratic Leadership in the House.”

More recently, tax-advocacy groups and lobbyists have pursued such actions, largely claiming that states need the potential millions of dollars in profits that they are missing out by allowing such purchases to continue being tax free. Verenda Smith, associate of the Federation of Tax Administrators, takes a more absurd humorous patriotic route. “Do you want to be a good American, or do you want to be an American who wants to cheat your government deliberately? It’s a harsh way to look at it, but it’s true.” Considering the fact that being a “good” American has a direct correlation with a pay raise for Verenda, she should read Carnegie’s “How To Win Friends and Influence People” next time she decides to make public comments that are more embarrassing to herself than condemning of the general public. One senator aims to limit such restrictions, and hopes to help keep the internet free, at least to some degree.

Kentucky’s Jim Bunning (R) is proposing S.3670, a plan to regulate certain State and local taxation of e-commerce. Despite the fact that Bunning’s proposal does not address taxation for citizens making purchases within their respective state, it is refreshing to see bills that do not encourage such legislation. More dialogue must be created about such proposals to help encourage online purchases to remain free of such impositions. In recent times, other proposals to limit e-commerce from being taxed are gaining as little momentum as Bunning’s, receiving few (if any) co-sponsors. Action must be taken to, at the very least, limit the amount of jurisdiction states have over such transactions.

Bunning, a former Major League Baseball pitcher, seems to have been batting 100 in the realm of e-commerce for consumers…we need more with the same mindset in Congress if there are any hopes to keep taxation from reaching the invisible but intrinsic borders of e-commerce.

A proposal to make emailing spam a civil crime

jared — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:52:39 +0000

Despite the fact that it can be fun to find you’ve won $5,000,000 inheritance from your now deceased uncle in Nigeria or are offered to buy a 2008 oil tanker, there is currently a bill on the table that would make such emails a civil crime. According to Gartner, Inc., an IT industry research and advisory company, “between August 2006 and August 2007, roughly 3,500,000 United States computer users were victims of phishing scams, and suffered losses totaling $3,200,000,000.” Spam is something we all hate to love, but despite the fact that it can be…fun… several US senators are trying to make such acts worthy of a conviction and hefty crime.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), backed by Bill Nelson and the convicted felon/Congressmen Ted Stevens, are proposing S.2661, a bill that would allow the FCC to determine and enforce whether or not you’ve been “phishing”. Senator Snowe estimates that 59,000,000 phishing emails are sent per day with nearly 1/6 actually being opened by the recipients. Under section 3 of the bill, “Phishing; Related Deceptive Practices” the enforcement outlines up to $2,000,000 in penalties if a person is found knowingly identifying false or misleading information. The bill seems to weigh especially heavy if a person is found misrepresenting a government division, despite the fact that non profits, business, and other entities are covered. In addition, the jail time for such a conviction can last up to 5 years – a long enough time to make people think twice as to whether or not it’s truly worth the risk to offer Viagra at cost. Even though it’s always nice to see you can make free long distance calls to your aunt in China or that Mike Smith (a long time friend of everybody’s) has found a new job for you and only requires your birthdate and social security number in return, your inbox may not be quite as full a year or so from now.

Major support to dramatically cut beer tax

jared — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:55:43 +0000

At a time when the United States is looking to greatly increase social welfare programs and overall increased government involvement, a large group of legislators are looking to make beer cheaper for all of us (finally Congress is getting the right idea). H.R.1610, originally introduced by Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), has a staggering 240 co-sponsors, totaling over 50% of House members. Most people agree with the notion that it’s hard to find politicians that don’t drink, and bills such as this can begin to provide evidence to help make the case.

Earl’s 240 member army consists of a wide range of both republicans and democrats, all behind one of the shortest bills to ever be introduced in the House. The bill’s official text is barely over one page long, offering a genius solution based on pure simplicity: amending the IRS Code of 1986 in order to reduce the beer tax before the 1990 tax increase took place. The bill officially cuts the overall tax by 50%, making it a more viable option for the American public to get liquid bread at a discounted rate 7 days out of the week. Cheers to you Congress-hopefully we can sing 100 bottles of beer on the wall AND save money soon.

Sending text message spam may cost $11,000

jared — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:19:01 +0000

Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) has a proposal on the table aiming to “prohibit text message spam”. Smith gave his bill the name the “Do-Not-Text Act of 2008” – a rather strange title for a proposal that aims at cutting down the nuisance frequently mirrored in your inbox. The bill’s enforcement is accomplished by amending the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which allows The Department of Justice to fine up to $11,000 per violation, as overseen by the FCC. Smith also seeks to amend the Communications Act of 1934, using the Act as grounds for prior authorization for sending “service commercial messages”. The seven page bill currently has 3 cosponsors, including Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Olympia Snowe – the latter currently proposing similar legislation to make sending spam over email a civil crime punishable up to $2,000,000. Smith’s bill is currently in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and certainly is worth reviewing.

For those following Senator Smith’s GOP track record, despite the fact that he received 70% of the primary vote when re-running for office in 2008, he was rumored supporting Senator Obama in the presidential race. Accusations were first made after Smith tied his campaign to several of Obama’s ads in the attempt to reach young voters in Oregon. Regardless, Smith’s track record shows an overall trend of being more issue-oriented, as evidenced by this proposal being endorsed by 1 republican and 2 democrats.

American Nazis on the rise; Midwest Rally

jared — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:35:53 +0000

One of the topics everyone recognizes but prefers not to talk about is beginning to emerge as a part of the forefront of US social movements. Rumors of increased Nazi activity in the states are beginning to surface and need to be addressed head-on before the situation becomes difficult to reverse. Amidst recent historical presidential results, the group may find itself seeing higher levels of interest than experienced in recent times. The most recent rally administered by the National Socialist Movement was last Saturday, November 8, in mid-Missouri. The rally was initially supposed to take place in the city of Columbia, but after being denied a city permit the group of 63 moved 30 minutes south to Jefferson City, the state’s capital.

For being in the middle of the Bible Belt with a strong Catholic presence, the rally attracted a surprisingly large amount of bystanders. Area law enforcement officials were on full staff in a fashion rarely experienced before, preparing for the violence that is frequently encouraged within such rallies. According to eye witnesses, spectators were surrounded by the parties’ workers yelling vile sentences from the crowd too vulgar to repeat here, trying to instigate violence in the attempt to encourage bystanders to feel the supposed power of the Nazi movement. Events such as this should also draw attention to suspicions surroudning the United State’s recent military decision to bring home the 3rd infantry division from Iraq to be stationed for on-call federal response within the states. The yearlong post began last month with occurrences of natural or manmade emergencies or disasters, including terrorist attacks. Growing movement activity such as this now has the possibility of being met with Taser-tested, Iraqi War-prepared soldiers.

There are several proposals in the House and Senate that deserve to be encouraged more in the hope of preventing the developing Nazi movement from growing. S.963, a plan to “authorize the Secretary of Education to make grants to educational organizations to carry out educational programs about the Holocaust”, would help underscore such developments. The bill is sponsored by Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Such proposals would help provide a stronger foundation of historical understanding to our nation’s most vulnerable population. Despite the plan’s $10 million cost, such programs have been found successful in the past as a part of preventive measures.

Another proposal, H.R.6094, seeks to hold surviving Nazi war criminals accountable for previous activities and atrocities in World War II by encouraging foreign governments to coordinate and prosecute such people. Thus far the bill has not received any support outside its sponsor, Steve Israel (D-NY). Aside from the bill’s stated intentions of helping achieve justice for victims of the Holocaust, acknowledging active government coordination against remaining Nazis around the world would help the situation in the US as well. If broadcasted effectively, the action would provide a subtle, historically-based deterrent for the National Socialist Movement at little or no monetary cost to taxpayers.

It is truly amazing to consider how little we as humans learn from the past. The sheer lack of historical acknowledgment on the part of the US Nazi movements’ members is both an atrocity in of itself and a harsh reminder that there are still a number of people seemingly guarded from reason. Such group’s members show a profoundly immature lack of appreciation for sanctity of human life and civil rights amidst a time when America’s minorities have been given increasingly equal representation. Immigrants and cultural diversity have shaped America’s history to one of the largest extents. It is not as if we do not have sufficient historical occurrences and evidence from which to draw clear signals against such movements – action must be taken now before it grows into anything more than the unintelligent, unrespectable, and wretched group of small, thick skulled supporters it is today.

The tipping point for federal campaign limits

jared — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:14:37 +0000

“We’re entering a brave new world of presidential fundraising.”– Michael Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission

The 2008 Presidential Race proved to not only be demographically historical, but the most expensive in US history as well, blowing past all previous records. Since January 2007 the 2008 presidential candidates combined have spent roughly $1 billion dollars ($2.4billion if you count candidates other than McCain and Obama) – an increase of over $300 million from the previous record-breaking 04 presidential election. This increase truly is colossal when considering back in the Bush vs. Gore election $250 million sounded like a large sum. Due to the airwave-saturating spending habits of Senator Obama there is a now a precedence to spend up near $33,000 per second just to air a commercial on only one of the big networks (estmiates taken from NBC, CBS, and FOX) during primetime spots. When are the rising costs of US elections ever going to be enough? All-time-high records can be found in virtually all other areas of US political campaigns as well.

It is anticipated the new cost to elect a US president and members of Congress will cost a staggering $5.3 billion. The most expensive congressional race of 08 hails from Illinois’ 14 district, where candidates vying for Dennis Hastert’s previous seat have spent a combined $7.5 million as of October 11 – more recent filings will certainly prove to be higher. As spending goals continue to be significantly greater than the ones before, the psychological effects of such increases may prove to me more devastating than the financial costs. To a large extent the American public already feels that far too many politicians get to their point of servitude by far too many political favors and connections to begin with. Despite the fact that the 08 election year is proving to have very high turnout, I predict that eventually as spending reaches a peak voter turnout will begin to drop significantly. Regardless, it appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending and will most likely see fresh, new waves of proposed legislation in an attempt to impose political spending limits of the sort that can be found in Canada.

To date there are not many proposals on the table. Several of them merely reduce portions of campaign financing (such as individual campaign contributions) while increasing other categories, such as the presidential primary qualifying threshold – even to the tune of 5 times that of current standards. (Ironically) Among its supporters you will find Senator Obama’s vote. The only proposal that aims for an overall guaranteed reduction is Michael E. Capuano’s (D-MA) H.R.2269, which aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Capuano hopes to reduce the $2,000 maximum amount of individual contribution that any person can make with respect to federal offices down to $1,000, and adjusted for inflation after 2010. Thus far he is his only sponsor.

For the sake of debate, although Senator Obama has spent more raw dollars than ever before, a short delve into political campaigns from America past does help put these numbers into perspective, if only in a shallow sense. In terms of real dollars the most expensive campaign dates back to 1896 when $3.5 million was spent to ensure Williams Bryan did not get elected. Adjusted for inflation, that sum was equal to over $3 billion in today’s dollars. However, this is the most extreme example that one can draw a comparison to. Back then Chinese goods were considered a valuable rarity and John McCain was only 2 years old…my how the times have changed. Most Americans would agree that the amount of spending on elections is getting astronomical, and overall does lend itself towards increased government transparency. Similar concerns have caused other Democratic nations, such as Canada, to place strict limitations on a variety of different campaigns. For presidential campaigns both the time limit and the overall expenditures are capped. Whether or not Canada’s specific approach would work as a model for the US, it’s nice to see that there are other realistic case studies for when the time for reform is demanded (or needed, whichever comes first).

It appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending, but sooner or later public support for political race spending limits (and perhaps campaign length restrictions) will tip the scale for proposed reforms.

Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba: The Veiled Trio Part III

jared — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:14:10 +0000

Part 3/3: Military Agreements-Terrorist Group Activity

Perhaps the most troubling series of advancements that have taken place between Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba are found within this last overview of policy developments. The area of military agreements and coordinated defense and suspected terrorist activity are off the charts when compared to the sheer lack of awareness that is found among the American public. Most of the quotes found throughout this last part of coverage are presented in a way to largely allow readers to draw their own conclusions and in the lieu of government transparency, and to being to understand the magnitude of developments that will begin to start shaping significant parts of US foreign policy over the next decade or so. If you have not been able to read the first parts of this series, the first on nuclear proliferation while the second on trade, please follow the previous links to help get a more complete picture.

The most drastic developments within the veiled trio began to take place in 2007, after years of policy-forming precedents had been sent by a more bilateral-oriented approach. In October of 2007, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was quoted responding to questions about Iranian-Venezuelan relations that “I think [there is] an emerging threat and challenge to the West, which is the export of ideology that we see among Islamist extremists in the Middle East from Iran, and the marriage of that with others who, perhaps for their own reasons, have strong anti-American views or who simply exploit anti-Americanism as a way of promoting their own ideological or power agendas…” Chertoff’s comments were made around the time he began expressing sharp criticism directed at Iran for increasing western hemisphere activity. The gravity of the exportation of Iranian terrorists to Venezuela is impactful when realizing that Iran and Venezuela truly are military partners with firm establishments in place.

To date, “Venezuela has concluded nearly 200 bilateral agreements with Iran on military cooperation, the sharing of intelligence, expanding financial cooperation, and initiating cultural exchanges, among others.” Furthermore, “ In February 2008, a United States Federal law-enforcement official shared, We’ve known for some time that Islamic extremists groups were gaining momentum and exploiting the region … Iran is no exception now with Cuba and Venezuela, the door is open.” Both Iran and Venezuela work incredibly hard to ensure that the door that Cuba provides, only 100 miles from Key West, making it the most dangerously close enemy the United States has. Cuba understands the leverage it holds, and the geographic importance it plays within the veiled trio.

The quotes found in this post largely can be found cited from research presented in Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”. The bill outlines the urgency that the average US citizen has not realized yet, and calls for increased deterrents and communication to have the US become more involved within the trio’s affairs. One of the most troubling quotes sited as justification for her bill date back “In April 2008, (when) for the fourth year in a row, the Department of State’s Annual Country Report on Terrorism stated that the Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of (several Latin American terrorist groups) and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.”

This 3 part series of brief coverage on Iranian/Venezuelan/Cuban coordination is the only beginning of the breadth and depth of developments that have taken place in recent years that should be of utmost importance to US foreign policy. To begin to jump into this troubling part of US concern, follow these links to review H.R.7068, Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s plan that while not necessarily outlining the optimal solution, does point to some of the concerning developments that should be garnering much more attention in the United States in terms of foreign policy focus priorities.

The future colossal costs of college

jared — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:12:43 +0000

To most people’s surprise, the most recent study conducted evaluating the overall increase of higher education costs shows satisfyingly minute changes. According to the nonprofit organization College Board, for the current academic year the average list price increase for four-year colleges is less than 1 percent over inflation – one of the smallest increases seen in the college world in a long time. Additionally, the average financial aid package increased, allowing colleges greater admission rates than will most likely be seen as the financial crisis begins to surface in other parts of the economy. According to the College Board however, the situation is not nearly as optimistic for the future, based on both past costs and expected future trends…reform is needed quickly.

The College Board assumes the average tuition cost to increase by 6% annually, a figure that is notably larger than both the general inflation rate and the average increase in expected incomes. According to the same data set, the anticipated cost of attending a public college/university for four years in 2026 will cost a staggering $81,900, with private institution costs totaling around $313,800 – and keep in mind these costs only reflect college tuition and standard fees. These estimates do not include other significant costs of attending a higher learning institution, such as room and board, books, and transportation. The increasing costs of the already colossal investment of acquiring a bachelor’s degree is intensified when considering that according to the USA Today 52% of college students take 5 years to earn their degrees.

Some of the pending legislation awaiting actions beyond their respective committee statuses aim to reduce the overall costs of higher education in anticipation for the shocking price increases. These increases will soon begin to hit some families beyond the current near-crisis point of nearly having to remortgage their homes. One such proposal has been introduced by Herb Kohl (D-WI) and is hoping to authorize the Education Department to match grants to high schools that establish dual enrollment programs, in the attempt to encourage students to start considering college at an earlier age and help reduce overall college costs by decreasing the amount of time it takes to earn a bachelor’s.

Another interesting proposal deals with a more systemic approach and requires less of an increase in government spending or grant/award programs. H.R.4149’s official goal is to “limit excessive fluctuations in tuition to help students and families plan for college costs.” The bill would require institutions to offer a binding, multi-year tuition and fee schedule for at least four years for the attainment of a degree. The proposal is rightly named the “Truth-in-Tuition Act of 2007” and would be enforced through amending the Higher Education Act of 1965. To discover what other reforms are on the table, follow this link and make sure your opinion is heard.

The future “war on the middle class” is going to get a lot worse if the increasing costs of education are not addressed. Reforms such as these need more dialogue if they are to have any hope of getting passed or, at the very least, inspiring other legislatures to step up to the plate and help combat the greatest outlet for opportunity that our future generations may very well be laregly excluded from.

Foreign Policy: Cowboy diplomacy out, Suburban diplomacy in

jared — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:42:54 +0000

The United States has officially moved into a new era of policy. Some of the most obvious developments will be made in the area of foreign affairs – a situation formerly known across the board for strong hegemonic undertones highlighted with post-WW2 attitudes. The United States simply cannot afford to sustain the political precedents formed by the Bush administration, and Barack Obama knows it. We are launching into a new period – a new beginning that will start by distancing US foreign policy from its previous reputation as being ruled by cowboy politics to a new chapter that will fulfill the title “suburban diplomacy”.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama is a great communicator. His charisma and ability to connect with the general public has not been seen since the days of Reagan. Obama’s charisma and charming smile is so convincing that he was able to rise from a first term US senator to the President of the United States – the chief commander and the leader of the supposed free world. The amazing part of Obama’s rise to fame being carried by his “rising star” status is just how quickly his smiles worked. Obama took his position in 2004 and less than three years later began campaigning for what would become the most expensive presidential race in US history. For all of the dialogue on the historical implications the 08 race has on social/ethnic issues, this may prove to be the most historical point of all.

The term suburban diplomacy as it is being introduced in this op-ed refers to a movement towards more plane-Jane political ideas, focusing largely on re-channeling time and money from abroad back to the US. This approach clearly has worked so far in terms of increased citizen involvement (as partially shown by this year’s record voter turnout) and the large number of young voters. The plain-Jane platform that Obama won on strikes a chord of simplicity within the American voter, instilling more trust than the current President’s administration (and Congress for that matter) was ever used to over the past 8 years. Government transparency is truly what voters see in Barack – a return (a notion I have a hard time agreeing with personally) to less corporation-influenced policies paired with less strings attached.

For introductory proof, recall the one-word campaign of “change” that Obama ran on for the past 22 months – any advanced level of political theory complexity simply do not exist. The simplicity of his historical victory reflect the lack of depth that American’s want to vote for in terms of political connections and favors (and perhaps links to companies such as Halliburton). What Obama posses is a real gift to connect with the everyday voter – a skill that will find Obama with strong citizen approval as a more socialistic approach to domestic policies will be introduced. But for the short term, amidst all of Obama’s criticism of the War in Iraq, the area of foreign affairs is where most the most drastic changes will be seen, and these changes will be easily drafted, voter approved. But no matter the specific reforms, Barack will return the US to the hug-friendly approach that Bill Clinton was internationally known for, and will provide a test for whether or not “change” can truly happen in a post-Bush dynasty period of time. Sa la vie Texan tactics…Obama: show us the change – the world is waiting in high anticipation.

President Bush (pictured left) at his 1,583 acre Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba: The Veiled Trio Part II

jared — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:10:10 +0000

Part 2/3: Trade

Despite the fact that the term “trade” sounds extremely vague when compared to “nuclear proliferation” the impacts of trade to the extent that Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been conducting show significant developments on the part of the veiled trio. The amount of trade agreements and overall activity between the three nations has stepped up considerably over the past few years, with strange coincidences (?) of coordinated activity with Russia (such as Russia deploying ships to Hugo’s coast with nuclear technologies possibly for change right before the US signed a NPT-violating treaty with India).

The newest trade alliances and bilateral trade agreements include the increasing relations and activity with the Iran-Cuba joint Economic, Scientific, and Technical Cooperation Commission. The last major economic agreement was signed between the 2 countries in 2006 and helped pave the way for the surge in recent trade activity. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency in 2007 Iran and Cuba set up a joint shipping company known as the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). IRISL had the original goal of allowing Venezuela to access Iranian commodities such as construction and agriculture machinery and Cuba to purchase Iranian transport wagons. The IRISL was matched with a reportedly $200 million loan from Iran to Cuba. Again, we see unity between the trio. In August of 2007 Iranian Deputy Commerce Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari reportedly signed two protocols of trade with Cuba and Venezuela, decreasing overall tariffs aiming, among other things, to increase the already $60 million in Iranian exports to Venezuela. The statistics on Cuba are a little bit harder to locate.

2007 would continue to be a busy year for major developments that should have made US headlines much easier than they did. Months later Chavez established standard civilian airline flights with Venezuela and “designated sponsors”, which include Syria and not surprisingly, Iran. In Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”, Iran is referenced a surprisingly 24 times within the 45 page bill that only references 2 middle eastern countries (the only other country was Syria, mentioned only once). The move was largely seen by US Defense officials as a more convenient, much more blatant way for Iran to utilize the potential use its close relationship with Venezuela to “…facilitate the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons into the Western Hemisphere through terrorist proxy groups.”

The more you look into the affairs the easier it is to find American-based justification for bills such as Ros-Lehtinen’s when considering how much control the US has positioned itself to have in many parts of the world after World War II. These include many agreements shielded largely under military agreements such as NATO and the economic agreements the US found itself in eastern Asia with countries that eventually became some of the countries’ largest trade partners, including South Korea and Japan. In a more current foreign policy spotlight, as President Bush continues to preach democracy and capitalism as vehicles for freedom and unrestricted markets around the world (even to the point of imposing force), the US has not been successful in decreasing the narcotics and illicit drug trade that is often paired with terrorist lingo on the news.

“A 2007 Drug Enforcement Administration report linked nearly half of foreign terrorist organizations around the world today to narcotics trade, underscoring the fact that the fight against terrorism must also include a corresponding fight against illicit drugs.” Similar reports point towards coordination in the arms trade between the 3 nations, sighting that in May 2008, the Department of State, for the third year in a row, that Venezuela has violated the Arms Export Control Act and thereby criticized for not cooperating with the United State’s antiterrorism efforts.

When reviewing the other most significant developments that have taken place as of 2008 it is clear that the true concern with the agreements between the three nations lie in the topic of coordinated terrorism advancements. Most have had seemingly unusual coincidences(?) with trade, such as the 07 establishment of civilian airline flights, but will be covered in detail in part 3 of the Veiled Trio series. Regardless of your own opinions, there is one thing cannot be ignored: the sheer amount of developments and agreements that have been taking place between the three nations over the past three years.

President Bushs wisest words to Obama

jared — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:41:20 +0000

We all know that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the most profoundest presidential “quoters” in US history. His long list of power-packed comments will be missed by all as the smooth-talking Illinois Senator rises to be the next leader of the “free world.” As Bush passes the torch to Obama there will undoubtedly be a long, long trail of people waiting for the “change” that Obama promised for so long. And yet, ironically, the 6^th longest-running Democratic Senator in US history is never very far behind…

Regardless, President Bush’s wise words to Obama were consistent with many of his world- famous speeches. According to Bush spokesperson Dana Perino, Bush advised “You are about to go on one of the great journeys of life. Congratulations and go enjoy yourself.” Time can only tell whether or not Obama can provide the change he promised, but one thing is certain: the American public is tired of leaders considering the US presidency as nothing more than “one of the great journeys”. If Obama does enjoy himself, let’s just hope that he doesn’t choose to do it Texas-cowboy style…

Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba: The Veiled Trio Part I

jared — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:30:24 +0000

Part 1/3: Nuclear Proliferation

Three of the most troubling not-so allies the United States continually does not significantly manage to increase positive relations with are banning together – and are gaining momentum (coincidentally?) as Russia is reemerging as a major player within the various regions. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been stepping up negotiations both bilaterally and multilaterally a great deal over the past few years, and according to US government officials they are not anticipated to slow down any time soon. There are 3 primary issues of concern between the trio that are of utmost concern: nuclear proliferation, trade, and military agreements/terrorist group activity.

This 3 part series will review the situation at hand following closely a pending piece of US legislation proposed by Illena Ros-Lehtinen. Her bill, H.R.7068 seeks to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity” in regards to a host of troubling developments that the American public is all too naive about. The facts found below were outlined in Ros-Lehtinen’s bill, which can be found in pdf format here.

Nuclear proliferation

The United States recently has aggravated the world with the passage of H.R.7081, the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.” Or, in a more realistic light, “The US agreement that allowing US companies to get $80 billion + in contracts from India’s new nuclear plant construction plans”. This has dulled the US’ arsenal of criticism directed at Russia for its new generous gifts and joint military exercises with Venezuela accompanied with nuclear-bearing Russian ships relocating to Chavez’s coasts. American citizens are so tired of hearing the word “nuclear” that’s all too often paired with terms such as “chemical and biological weapons” that we often miss the gravity of the situation at hand. Here are the facts:

The Chavez brothers and their minions have publicly supported Iran’s uranium enrichment program, often while smiling directly at United States’ diplomats and leaving the room when US diplomats begin to speak for years.

In May 2005, Chavez expressed interest in establishing a nuclear program and made public his request to the Iranian government for assistance. Three years is a long time, and unfortunately the American public has not been privy to a lot of the developments that have occurred since. What we do know is that on February 4, 2006, Venezuela joined only 2 countries in voting against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) resolution to report Iran for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty violations. Eleven days later Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, the Speaker of the Iranian parliament, stated his and the Iranian government’s readiness to provide technical assistance to a Venezuelan nuclear program.

More recently, on a visit to Iran in February 2008, a member of Venezuela’s parliament said that Iran would be willing to “practically give away” its civilian nuclear technology and that “if relations with Iran lead to sharing nuclear technology with us, we would then give it away to our brothers (Cuba) in Latin America once we are successful.” This is extremely concerning considering that the US government has suspected Hugo to have large deposits of uranium ore in the Guiana Shield Region of Venezuela. Perhaps even more startling was Chavez’s announcement on September 29, 2008 stating he would like Russia to help his country develop a nuclear program, quoting Putin as saying Russia “is ready to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy.” Of course according to both governments all nuclear developments would only be used for “peaceful purposes” as the countries’ mutual “profound friendship” would ensure for Americans.

These developments are only the beginning as nuclear advancements between the countries have escaladed quicker than many analysts feared. I would go as far as to argue that Russia has not only emerged with a strong presence within the region and the covert trio, but has found itself at a near supremacy-level when comparing the US’ developments with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba over the past few years. The situations that are developing will only become more of a priority over the next coming years, regardless if McCain or Obama is directing our policies. The US will need to take a hard examination as to whether or not we have any sway remaining after violating the major international formal agreement for nuclear-proliferation, while criticizing countries for taking actions that mirror the United States.

Putins Gas OPEC: the imminent monopoly

jared — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:29:33 +0000

“Regardless of whose property the natural resources and in particular the mineral resources might be, the state has the right to regulate the process of their development and use.” -Vladimir Putin

Current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin realized Russia’s vast political influence potential in regards to energy long before the topic became widely discussed among the general public. Hailing from Leningrad State University Law with a strong emphasis in international affairs, Putin quickly discovered the role increasing energy demand matched with decreasing supplies will have on the future of the world’s major affairs and global markets. Some of the precedents for action Putin set forth in regards to Russia’s political affairs and Gazprom that are already beginning to show fruition. Russia now seeks to create an OPEC-like natural gas organization, an effort that would secure the world’s #1 natural gas supplier as the #1 natural gas player immediately and deep into the foreseeable future.

Official announcements came shortly after current President (and former Chairman of Gazprom’s board of directors) Dmitry Medvedev hosted OPEC’s Secretary-General last week, securing plans for the Kremlin to coordinate oil efforts with the oil monopoly. The group would most likely include the owners of roughly 55% percent of the world’s known natural gas reserves – Russia, Iran, and Qatar – and may include coordination with countries such as Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, and Venezuela. Plans are expected to be finalized as early as November 18. These efforts are not new. According to Russian news sources the idea had been introduced long ago by no other than Mr. Putin himself.

Putin, pictured sporting his Judo gi in Japan, has been getting ready to kick ass outside the ring. This time his focus is in the area of natural gas and international monopolies.

Back in 2007 Vladimir was quoted saying “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea. We will think about it” – shortly after denying western accusations of Russia’s use of energy as a lever to attain international political sway. The idea of the world’s second greatest oil reserve owner coordinating with OPEC is frightening enough, but to have a new international coalition outlet for the Kremlin’s natural gas might is even more chilling. This is especially true when considering Putin’s international law-justifying stance on such issues: “Russia’s modern foreign policy is based on the principles of pragmatism, predictability and the supremacy of international law.”

The situation becomes more significant when realizing Putin’s deeper, less rosy stance on such topics. “…the basic strategic tasks for the natural resource bloc involve achieving the transition to a rational combination of administrative and economic methods of government regulation in the sphere of resource exploitation”. The US will undoubtedly be frustrated in its world affairs if Russia begins to step up its natural gas exploitation beyond simply making threats of cutting off pipelines to Eastern Europe. If (and when?) a “gas OPEC” is created confrontation (diplomatic or otherwise) will eventually have to take place.

Presently, the US already has several pending proposals to hold various OPEC counties to laws such as the Sherman Act (S.2976), criticizing lack of competition as a basis. Other proposals go one step further (H.R.6074), seeking to amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to “make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal,”. This stance will simply not be enough if America does in fact choose to extend the same line of thinking to Russian natural gas partnership activity, a Kremlin-admitted cornerstone to the rebuilding of the former Soviet’s crumbled economy. When money calls and natural gas is the realistic translation of both that and heavy international influence, the US will need more than a federal law to change Putin’s (and Medvedev’s ) mind.

Current President Dmitry Medvedev (pictured left) with former President Vladimir Putin back in 2000. Putin served two terms, endorsed Gazprom Exec Medvedev, and then re-emerged on the political scene as Russia’s Prime Minister.

“In terms of a general conclusion it follows that existing socio-economic conditions, and also the strategy for Russia’s exit from the deep crisis and restoration of her former power on a qualitatively new basis demonstrate that conditions in the natural resource complex remain the most important factor in the state’s near-term development.”– Vladimir Putin

Ted Stevens: Could anyone fill his shoes?

jared — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:09:45 +0000

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens has been convicted of corruption as of October 27, offering the most difficult challenges the longest continually serving Republican Senator has faced in a race to date. Maintaining his innocence, Stevens continues to deny the 7 corruption charges found in reference to his lying about free home renovations and other favors received by a wealthy oil contractor, to the tune of over $250,000. The gifts were found to be given from friend and VECO Corp chairman Bill Allen who, in turn, reportedly expected political favors over the next coming years.

Since 1968 Theodore has maintained an extensive track record, earning him respect for the wide breadth of topics that he has covered over his political career. These topics range from lobbying huge sums of funds from Washington to telecommunication and global warming bills, to heavy state-level topics such as logging, oil industry affairs, and pretty much everything else the Alaskan government has had to address since officially becoming a state in 1949. The real question to ask as a result of these politically damaging developments is what will be the hole left if Stevens doesn’t win on November 4 AND does not get expelled by the Senate on a possible two-thirds vote that may take place. Despite the fact that Stevens is now a convicted felon, there are no laws that bar such people from serving in Congress.

Steven’s Girdwood, Alaska home (pictured left) was modernized and given updates such as a wine cellar, wrap around porches, and a hot tub in 2000.

Pending legislation highlights

Currently Senator Stevens has 29 sponsored bills that are in the committee phase. The bill topics have a wide spectrum, ranging from fuel economy and ocean exploration teams to prevention of child pornography. There are 3 major topics of interest that appear to be the most likely devastated the fastest if Stevens does indeed get booted out (whether by voters, the judicial system, or the Senate). In terms of pending legislation, they include telecommunications, oil/energy efficiency/fuel economy standards, and child pornography prevention.

Telecommunications

Stevens has made considerable progress in the area of internet, network neutrality, and the internet in such a way that should shock most readers simply because of his age. Among his greatest achievement was the Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 – an effort assisted by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan. The act reorganized and cleaned up various provisions by law, including the Federal Radio Act of 1927. Similarly, Dorgan is currently supporting Steven’s S.2919, which seeks to amend the same act to increase compliance with industry standards and ensure that modernization is transitioned within the bill due to the increasing use of telecommunications services. The bill’s official goal is “To promote the accurate transmission of network traffic identification information.” Stevens has been serving long enough that it is safe to say that he is, all factors considered, the most experienced senator working towards telecommunications compliance and provider standards.

Oil/Energy efficiency/fuel economy standards

Currently Ted has 5 pending sponsored bills that fall under this category. Being so close to some of the richest oil fields (and ANWR) black gold is something he is very used to addressing on a daily basis. Ted has one of the most seasoned records in Congress in terms of oil, experiencing the challenges the US has faced with OPEC, the introduction of the foreign-policy shaping Carter Doctrine, and all of the developments up until the highest prices experienced yet by Americans. The 5 pending bills include a resolution directing the Secretary of Energy to develop standards for efficient lighting, a 23 page to tighten Federal agency energy use, a bill to provide tax credits for new buildings that utilize incandescent lamps, increased CAFÉ standards, and a bill that prohibits price gouging by gasoline merchants during market disruptions.

Child pornography prevention

The first of the 2 bills Stevens is sponsoring runs along the same vein as S.2919, amending the Communications Act of 1934, but aims to “prevent the carriage of child pornography by video service providers…and to restrict the sale or purchase of children’s personal information in interstate commerce. So far his effort in this particular proposal is not being co-sponsored by anyone else, however S.1965, Bill’s second proposal, has gained momentum garnering 20 supporters thus far.

S.1965 was received in the House last June and outlines a comprehensive plan to promote a “safe internet for children”. The bill’s highlights include directing the FTC to carry a nationwide program to increase awareness and education against child pornography, direction the government to evaluate industry standards and efforts, and to yet again amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require elementary schools with internet access to educate their students about safe online behavior.

Other bills of interest

Senator Stevens’ efforts affect many other areas of public policy, ranging from a proposal to assure compliance with basic standards for ATV vehicles to directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an avalanche protection program that increases education and forecasting capabilities. One surprising bill displays his eco-friendly(?) side, establishing a coordinated national ocean exploration program that serves as an addition to a bill aiming to limit whaling in US waters (S.3333).

Theodore Fulton Stevens truly has a lot to bring to the table for the future if his recent conviction does not stop in him dead in his tracks. According to what he demonstrated in the court room and the amount of intensity he claims his innocence, it appears that he is dedicated to let nothing stop him in his efforts for public policy reforms. To see a complete list of his pending legislation, click here.

The best drunk politician videos ever

jared — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:05:09 +0000

With less than a week until the election we thought it would be apropos to delve into the one hobby both presidential candidates will have in common no matter who ends up taking the title: drinking. Most people think that without alcohol politics simply would not be the same, and after review of some of the most powerful political leaders of our time I would have a hard time agreeing. Below you can some of the best videos of intoxicated presidents doing what they do best, making decisions for the rest of us that impact the world. Take a few minutes out of your day and revisit some of the possible causes for some of the world’s greatest problems, and make sure to stay up-to-date on the upcoming election.

President George W. Bush

Back in 1992 when President Bush didn’t need to worry about the future of the United States he seemed like he was used to having a little bit too much fun, “Only in America, only in America.”

Select quotes:

“Only in America, only in America would a couple like that be allowed to unite, beautiful people yes…”

“Very boring person. Hates to drink, doesn’t like to smoke.”

“Only in America can a guy like him even find work”

“Only in America would anybody call her mom.”

Despite the fact that President Bush is often blamed for being drunk in the White House during most of his two-term administration, apparently there are times where even the best cowboys need to relax a little bit. Perhaps this shouldn’t have happened before a press conference on war in Iraq.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

It appears that lunch with Mr. Putin might include one of Russia’s historically favored pastimes – vodka. This clip is from the latest G8 summit, showcasing French President Sarkozy’s press conference introduction.

Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin

Boris Yeltsin has got to go down in history as one of the most memorable politicians the world has ever seen. As the Cold War came to an end and the former Soviet Union found itself in need of serious recovery Mr. Yeltsin found himself in charge, with an excess of vodka cases for his enjoyment. The reality is a little scary, however, when one realizes old Boris was in charge of a stockpile of nuclear weapons – and Russia was still a major global player none-the-less.

Apparently he also had a special talent for press conferences (starting to see a pattern here?)…

The videos honoring Mr. Yeltsin never end; here is a 2 minute recap of his legendary presidency. Perhaps we will never see another Boris Yeltsin again, but one thing is certain: no president will ever be able to cut a rug as well as him.

State Surge: How do you keep up?

The Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008

jared — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:04:35 +0000

The reasons for the US entry into war in Iraq are often debated, generally leaving people with the conclusion that we shouldn’t have entered in the first place. Whether or not critics believe the US entered the war mostly for oil interests there is one current US policy to help reinforce the notion: the 1980 Carter Doctrine. One pending proposal in the House seeks to prevent future Iraqi oil developments without amending this doctrine in the pursuit to “prohibit certain activities relating to the petroleum resources of Iraq…”. While this bill may be too little too late it will be interesting to track its outcome and the possible precedence for US foreign policy it implicates.

Carter Doctrine Background

The Carter Doctrine was born off of the heels of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan amidst concerns over possible lack of access to Middle East oil. At the time, most of the US’ current and near future expected source oil flowed through the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, located right in between Iran and the Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore, the strait is the only sea source for oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to be transported through. According to the US government, the percentage of oil reserves held in the Persian Gulf had risen from 54 to 65 percent since 1961. The Soviet’s efforts brought them nervously close enough to this oil rich passage that Jimmy Carter believed the Soviets aimed to pose a “grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.”

At this juncture, as the Cold War tensions continued to escalade, Jimmy Carter decided to find a means of justification for military intervention in order to ensure that the US could continue to rely on a stable flow of oil from various sources around the world and thus, the Carter Doctrine was born. Among the Doctrine’s most alarming inclusions was that “any attempt by outside (Soviet) force to gain control of the Persian Gulf will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and…will be repelled by any means necessary including the use of force.” From this quote on a long series of recurring “coincidences” for future US wars were set in stone. The US now began to have a legal justification for military intervention across the globe, as long as the actions taken on the part of an “outside force” were determined to be justifying US national security.

Some critics believe that the Carter Doctrine is obsolete due to increasing Chinese energy demands and the Asian monolith’s emerging influence in the Gulf. To the contrary, after reviewing US military deployments and investments over the past 28 years it is clear that the Doctrine is still needed. The US’ strong military and economic presence in the Gulf is helping occupy a country that the US Government’s Energy Information Administration places very high on the priority list in a 2007 report. “Iraq has the world’s third largest proven petroleum reserves and some of the lowest extraction costs, although just a fraction of its known fields are in development.” The Carter Doctrine, if explored for its potential, is clearly still in play in terms of US Military efforts.

A Senator’s proposal for a new precedence

To no surprise, Senator Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) is proposing H.R.6710, a bill “To prohibit certain activities relating to the petroleum resources of Iraq,” Dennis’ bill came not long after his proposal to impeach President Bush of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, a move that allowed him to deem himself the bravest Senator in America. The 8 page proposal outlines the plan to create the “Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008” allowing penalties to be set for a US citizen or entity to manage any level of responsibility for petroleum development in Iraq, including contracts or various business transactions.

In the bill’s text Senator Kucinich outlines several justifications for the proposal. They include the claim that the “Bush Administration has aggressively pressured the Iraqi government to privatize its oil resources” and that various United States oil companies have secured oil contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government, claiming that the said companies have pursued influencing former administration officials to use their sway for such contracts. Kucinich then proceeds with his criticism of the Bush Administration by stating Bush’s benchmark inclusion of a national sharing revenue plan under the disguise of a “hydrocarbon act”. And it gets worse.

One of the US oil companies cited for creating newly established oil contracts include Dallas’ Hunt Oil Company, of which Kucinich alleges the CEO of being a $35 million contributor to President Bush’s previous campaigns. Furthermore, the then CEO of Halliburton Richard Cheney extended an invitation to the same generous Hunt Oil CEO to be on the Halliburton Board of Directors. The bill’s text continues to offer a wealth of information, including the former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle’s resignation from his various chairmanship activities when more and more sources began to question his US oil company ties to the war of which he is cited as “being an early advocate of invading Iraq and as an Iraq War Architect.”

Due to the above reasons and the abundance of conclusions from “coincidences” of Iraqi contract-receiving US oil companies, it is no wonder that Kucinich is proposing such a plan, although it is a sure bet that Big Oil will try to shoot down the bill as fast as possible. Still, one is left to wonder why the Ohio Senator is not pursuing the foundational policy justification used to engage in such wars aka the Carter Doctrine. Regardless of whether or not Dennis’ proposal is simply reinforcement for the dialogue towards impeaching President Bush, at least one senator is brave enough to, at the very least, publicly announce the wide breadth of “coincidences” that have occurred between US oil company contracts with the Iraq Government. This bill is definitely worth tracking, and worth reading through to understand the gravity of the situation Kucinich is directing his efforts towards.

Department of Defense rumors of making solar energy world record

jared — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:36:55 +0000

Solar energy developments have been extremely rampant as of late across both the private and the public sector. Over the past few months the state of Hawaii has made solar water heaters mandatory beginning in 2010, The Department of Energy’s contracted company Boeing-Spectrolab achieved a world-breaking 40.7% sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency, and IKEA has announced plans to dedicated $77 million to its GreenTech energy fund. Developments have taken off and a plethora of proposed legislation have hit the ground running. Older concerns for lack of interest in solar energy seem to no longer be given even a passing thought as investment has increased from both foreign and overseas entrepreneurs and companies alike. The next groundbreaking development may be about to unfold.

The US Army announced its intentions to build the most powerful solar energy power plant in the world. The push for development has come about as a part of the United State’s increasing worries over its addiction to foreign oil and all around fossil fuel dependence. Despite the fact that this push is long overdue, it is refreshing none-the-less to see such an increase of interest from the DOD. On October 6, 2008 the US Army announced it would “partner with the private sector to construct a 500-megawatt solar thermal plant at Fort Irwin, California, in the Mojave Desert, that will provide renewable power on the grid and provide the sprawling Army post with added energy security against disruption of power supply.” Seeing that the Department of Defense is the world’s largest energy consuming entity, any relief from up to $400 per gallon fuel costs would help give it an edge in deployment and operational capacities.

The policy is paired with other plans on the part of the US government to boost its solar energy development and production. Other legislative topics of interest on the solar energy front include a host of renewable energy research and development plans, a bill to “authorize the National Science Foundation to award a monetary prize for achievement in electricity storage” (H.R.6882), and a proposal to establish a joint cooperation program with the Department of Energy to fund joint ventures with the Israeli government and various businesses and academic institutions (H.R.2229). Policies that are passed should aim to work in conjunction with the Department of Defenses’ sense of urgency to spur solar energy use and encourage the transfer of government developments into the private sector, enabling venture capitalists to do what they do best and help spur innovation. As pending legislation on solar energy development is getting increasingly intense make, sure to have a reliable source to track all updates that occur for this developing energy source.

A risky proposal against Big Oil: Accountability 101

jared — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:43:51 +0000

It seems that increasing oil revenues is the only reliable component of the US corporate world we can depend on. 2008 has brought some of the most challenging oil prices America has ever endured and yet oil companies continually make increasingly greater profits. This will probably come as no surprise, but needs to be stated: the second quarter of this year has again proved itself to be the most profitable in history for Big Oil. The leader of the Western six pack – Exxon Mobil – raked in an excess of $1.7 billion, surpassing its own records to yet again have the title as the highest-ever quarterly profits earner for an American firm. Bravo Exxon Mobile – none of us saw it coming.

For the most part, there are not many pending bills on the legislation front that attempt to provide additional regulation for oil companies and/or oil price increases. The central bill of interest does not seem too likely to pass although it would be fun to watch. The bill’s only advocate so far is the sponsor – Janice D. Schakowsy (D-IL) – a risky position for a lone politician to take against such an influence-packed group of monoliths. Her bill – H.R.6653 – aims “To provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices,” H.R.6653 proposes a 4 part strategy that denies oil companies tax deductions, conforms tax treatment for foreign tax credits, imposes a windfall profits tax on major oil companies, and establishes an Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund. In addition Schakowsy wants to amend the Sherman Act to prevent foreign states to act with each other to limit the production of oil, set energy prices, or take any actions in restraining free trade of energy sources. This bill will be interesting to watch (and Schakowsky’s future endorsements for that matter) – follow this link to find the most up-to-date information on this and other pieces of pending legislation available on the web.

US and India: Playing the nuclear trade cards dangerously

jared — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:20:23 +0000

Once again the Bush Administration’s bull-headed, hegemonic principles are driving our country further and further to a foundational precedence for hard knocks. H.R.7081, proposed by sponsor Howard L. Berman, (D-CA), will prove to be one of the United State’s largest historical blunders when it comes to its nuclear policies and agreements. The bills’ title states the notion to “approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy” – an extremely rosily painted picture for a bill that slaps both signers and non-sponsors of the Non-Proliferation Treaty directly in the face. To date only four nations have not signed the treaty, including India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea. The implications of the approval of the bill should make one nervous.

In terms of internal implications, the timing of the bill is extremely unique for a period where Americans are most concerned by the looming financial crisis, failing stocks, and largest bailout packages ever issued by the US Government. The bill was initially proposed on September 25, 2008 and signed by President Bush less than 2 weeks later, on October 8, 2008 – amidst worsening conditions that rival only the Great Depression. Second, the bill received only 8 cosponsors – a relatively low number of supporters for such a major trade policy. Even more shocking is the total number of recorded minutes of debate, totaling a whopping 40 minutes. Lastly, the timing of the bill seems nothing but rushed. With the United State’s Election Day less than one month away and India’s coming in a few short months it appears that the current administrations were determined to get such a bill passed – (coincidentally, of course) at a time where Americans would pay little attention to the bill even if it were not undergoing a financial meltdown.

The international implications for such a bill are a bit more troubling. The United States has held a thirty year ban on all nuclear trade with India – an internationally justifiable run considering that it makes it very clear that the US will not reward non-participants of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. But yet as India has recently announced plans to build a minimum of 30 nuclear-powered energy plants President Bush makes no hesitation in allowing the world’s largest democracy to move onward – a move enough bold to allow US companies to take advantage of emerging contracts similar to accusations of Head Oil Company and Halliburton’s oil contract sprees with the Iraqi Government. The bill explicitly outlines allowances for India to purchase US nuclear technology – a benefit that the Confederation of Indian Industry estimates could produce roughly $27 billion in US investment for only 18-20 new plants; while independent estimations hover right around $80 billion. Why would we expect other Non-Proliferation signers (such as Russia) to not act in the same direction with other nations with nuclear energy interests (Pakistan)?

For just as much interest that United States citizens are not taking one can find an equal proportion of criticism on the international stage. The new trade policy has set fire to a series of controversy within India, most notably in regards to national sovereignty. There is no doubt that China has silently observed the recent actions of the US to take part in nuclear investments so close to its border, while Putin is plotting the possible courses of action this new nuclear trade agreement could mean for his own efforts. This opportunity will most certainly give Russia an easy conversation topic at the next UN Security Council meeting, most likely leaving the US with more wise words from President Bush trying to avoid the parallels that can be drawn from this bill to Texas oil company contract engagements with the Iraqi Government (see the “Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008”). Another page has been written in the international book of nuclear developments. Ensure that you can stay on top of the newest US legislation proposals and help keep government transparency about the latest US nuclear agreement actions.

A Senators bold dream to capture lightening

jared — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:42:13 +0000

Amidst the increasing concerns and negative effects of the United State’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels proposed legislation to ease the pain at the pump and on national security risks are increasing. One of the most interesting proposals yet hails from Senator Louie Gohmert (R-TX). In his H.R.6882 he outlines his plans to create the “Electricity Prize Act of 2008” – a lamely entitled proposal but one worth looking into none-the-less. The bill’s text hopes to mandate the National Science Foundation to award a prize of $300,000,000 to the first group or company that can “develop the ability to store multi megawatt electricity for 30 consecutive days with less than a 10 percent decrease in the electricity stored.”

While Gohmert’s idea to lure free-market forces to work towards a sizable goal is not unique, it does outline several unique ideas. According to H.R.6882 dramatic advances have been made for the development and storage of fossil fuels and various forms of alternative energy, but not in the “manner and means of storing electricity, so electricity, when produced, must flow and be used promptly or lost.” Gohmert believes that if the 30 day storage minimum can be met drastic national security and energy benchmarks would be achieved, including satisfying America’s energy needs almost entirely by solar, increasing the chances of capturing lightening for energy use, and would free the US from reliance on foreign energy.

The Senator’s proposal thus far has only reached committee status, where it has been tied up since September 17. The 4 page proposal overall is sound but does not offer any sort of timetable, deadline, nor runner’s up prizes – characteristics that are rather unique for this sort of monetary-incentive plan. Due to the large sum of money Louie is requesting it’s a sure bet that the lack of specifics will be the most heavily debated aspects of the proposal, followed closely by his briefest of brief reference to a completely unexplored idea of energy , stating that his plan “may even lead to capturing lightening.”

Hilary Clinton will accept cabinet position if Obama offers

jared — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:22:56 +0000

Despite your personal opinions about the Clinton administration and the Clintons in general, based on statements from times past I for one have a hard time believing what comes out of the New York Senator’s mouth. After the last presidential debate on October 15 at Hofstra University Hilary was interviewed by CNN and announced that she would not accept a cabinet position invitation from Obama if offered. She feels that Democrats still will need sway in the Senate and it is her prerogative to ensure the backup troops will still be available when needed. When was the last time that you can recall Hilary accepting a backseat position under any circumstance?

Hilary’s influential background in brief

Hilary Clinton graduated from Wellesley College with honors in political science, originally being highly active in college Republican initiatives. During her college experience she quickly decided that she could not fulfill her lifelong dream of becoming an athlete and decided to turn towards the ever-honest path of US Litigation. Hilary found herself attending Yale Law School in 1969 while maintaining her active track record of high-level involvement. Two years later she met Bill and after four years of his developing and relentless hug-infused diplomacy she was finally won over. In 1975 the Clintons wed in Fayetteville, Arkansas, near the headquarters of the retail monolith she would later find herself representing and serving on the board of directors for.

Hilary’s long list of accomplishments range from being named the first female partner of Rose Law Firm to being ranked 1 of the most 100 most influential lawyers in the US by the National Law Journal in 1988. Hilary surprisingly made more taxable income than Mr. Clinton until he became Mr. President. Her long list of focuses most notably include working for children’s advocacy (namely through the Children’s Defense Fund), literacy and education efforts in Arkansas, and largely socialist-based healthcare proposals.* Hilary certainly is not a dumb person by any stretch of the imagination and she knows it, clearly not taking Socrates’ line of thought into account, “I know that I am intelligent, because I know nothing.”

*“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

Hilary’s track record: Foreign policy spotlight

While Hilary’s skills are highly attractive in the courtroom, she is not necessarily the freedom-fighting, life-risking US citizen she likes to make herself out to be. After CBS discovered that she and Chelsea were greeted by indigenous flower girls and not sniper fire upon their 1996 arrival in Bosnia, she had nowhere to turn but to begin focusing on more domestic issues that rings true to her Rambo-tainted patriotic passion for the truth and nothing but the truth. Aside from the evidence captured by the CBS camera crew, fellow American comedian Sinbad added to the exciting experience by stating “the most dangerous part of the trip was remembering where we were going to eat next”. Hilary’s convincing response? “Sinbad is a comedian…” I personally am comforted that the former First Lady can recognize when people tell jokes for a living instead of pretending to be the next Mother Teresa that makes jokes to our delight pro bono. The more you revisit this series of occurrences the more generous you realize Hilary truly is.

Clinton adviser Lissa Muscatine attempted to clear up all of the questions we were all asking but somehow just wasn’t convincing enough: “She met that there was fire in the hillside around the area when we landed which was the case.”Clearly CBS should increase the quality of their audio equipment. Even the pilot of the trip pointed to the absurdity of Clinton’s claims making it very clear that they never would have attempted to land if they were indeed under attack and that under his watch no passengers would be told to sit on their bullet-proof jackets; a strategy that US Army tests have found unsuccessful in trying to prevent injury when under fire or in the battlefield (this claim not yet confirmed).

The true implications of what Hilary’s track record shows us are best seen through her own words: “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down (her laughing and smiles multiply at this point) to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” In an entirely different speech Hilary stated “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” I agree with you Hilary, perhaps you should think about what you claim more carefully from here on out (especially if you have a CBS media team documenting your entire trip).

Hilary’s exciting life: Back in the US

Despite the disappointing announcement that Hilary was not named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hilary (she was born in 1947; Edmund’s successful hike was five years later), we do know that she tends to have psychic abilities when it comes to the press. Despite the fact that the Wall Street Journal’s financial section did not cover the futures market when she claimed to make her fortune she had an uncanny sense for the paranormal. But more realistically, perhaps what we’re observing within Hilary’s patterns is a disconnect somewhere in her memory in terms of timelines. Orders of occurrences do not seem to be her strong suit, a skill that most public officials would value above erroneous claims of just how much danger her daughter Chelsea has been through (controversy abound as to whether or not Chelsea had to duck into a café as the Two Towers were hit or if it was all just another misunderstanding).

Even today there is a long list of claims that Hilary still needs to “clarify” for us. Does Hilary like NAFTA or not? Does she understand the difference between clerical errors and White House gifts? Did she ever oppose the pre-emptive war with Iraq? More importantly, was she always a Yankees fan? The more one reads about Hilary Clinton the more one recognizes just how ambitious she claims (and takes back, and rewords, then restructures) she is. But one thing is clear among this growing list comprised with a tone of severe lack of accountability, Hilary is not done yet. She had her sights set on getting back to the White House since the day she and Bill moved out.

Why Hilary will not stay out of the White House

“In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know that I’m keeping a chart.”

For a politician with such an extensive background with such intense experiences* it should be clear that Hilary is not going to slow down. For those who spend any amount of time learning about her background it is hard to believe that Hilary could stay in the Senate offering back-up support for a historical “rising star” candidate that defeated her so boldly. Based on Hilary’s track record of sticking so closely to her claims I for one do not find myself in a position to be able to trust her seemingly humble intentions of supporting the Democrats from behind the scenes… and so far away from the Oval Office. Hilary’s story is not done yet, and she will not allow the defeat of the 2008 Presidential Election quiet her intentions down.

If offered a position on Barack Obama’s staff Hilary will not refuse the invitation and already has begun using any sway she has left to ensure she still has close friends deep inside the White House. Publicly, Obama is now Hilary’s “friend” (a gift or a curse?) and she is now ready to be “very happy to be doing everything I can for him.” But the question we should be asking is what is she expecting in return? Are her intentions as backwards as when she claimed to have no interest in running for the Presidency of the United States? ** She certainly may have hit a speed bump along her fast journey to once again exceed her husband both in terms of influence and income, but one thing is certain: we have not seen the last of Hilary Rodham Clinton.

*“I am not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.”

** “I have said that I’m not running and I’m having a great time being pres – being a first term senator” – On Hilary’s presidential ambitions

Russias renewed Venezuela; Americas 185 year old Response

jared — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:34:32 +0000

Concerns originally unique only during the Cold War are being renewed among rising Russian activity with its prime South American ally. Russia has again stepped up its presence as a significant player in the region by announcing a new $1 billion military loan package, improved oil trade agreements, and a November commitment for joint military exercises, paired with an expected 1,000 troops and 4 warships with Venezuela. These statements were released only days after Moscow declared its plans to upgrade its nuclear tactics, military efficiency, new concepts for artillery and a new space defense system by 2020. Russia continues to make its presence as a major player known and clearly is telling the world it is ready to once again balance the United State’s global presence.

The degree of reaction from the US is still being determined. With current financial crisis distractions looming this is not the only affair the US has showed a slow response time with. There thus far has not been very much activity on Chavez’s developing relationships with Cuba, Iran and China – the latter reporting a plan to assist Venezuela put a communications satellite in action by the end of the year. Thus far the only major concern publicized outside of Condoleezza Rice’s predictable press releases is Thaddeus G. McCotter’s (R-MI) H.R.1510 “Considering the Russian military deployments in the Western Hemisphere as reckless, provocative, and in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.” McCotter’s hegemonic proposal should be of no surprise when considering his faithful support for US intentions in the War in Iraq.

The interesting point of his plan is whether or not such an antiqued foreign security policy will provide strong enough grounds for the US to take action. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine was initially proposed in order to prevent European countries from taking newly established independent countries as new colonies, thereby aiding in stability within the American region. More recently it has been applied to Russian affairs in Latin America during the Cold War (sound familiar?), the Iran-Contra affair, and various other challenges with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Will Russia’s recent announcements spark US interest of creating a new doctrine – one that seeks to address multilateral agreements within Latin and South American countries (its failing backyard region) and Europe? Will Russia continue to pursue military efforts on the border of America at any cost? If a new policy were to be proposed the US would have a very hard time defending its stance on its lack of appreciation for Russian/Venezuelan involvement. Yet, the US needs to adapt its Latin and South American strategies and get more of a grip on reality. Somehow it is extremely unlikely that a doctrine from 185 years ago is going to make any significant strides for America’s policy towards Russia and our southern neighbors.

Mac and Mae, $ for McCain AND Obama

jared — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:25:53 +0000

The new and (improved?) proposed bailout package aiming to help prevent the US from a complete financial crisis is not only shallow in its creation but contains no mystery as to why it received little criticism from either presidential candidates. The bill, H.R.1424, has been wildly criticized for allowing companies to have a soft landing on the backs of US taxpayers. Many people waited in anticipation for both McCain and Obama’s reaction of the proposal but most should have been left disappointed. The central reason for the lack of debate? Both candidates received major financial contributions from the ever-generous Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

There are many different figures available to find the exact amount each candidate has received, but it appears that the most accurate data shows that for the current election John McCain received $169,000 between both companies and their affiliates. Obama received $122,850 directly from various PACs and Mac/Mae employees. Both senators voted for the bill, while pointing towards the future for true accountability for the companies’ actions. Obama stated “There will be time to punish those that set this fire, but now is not the time to argue about how it got set…Let’s do what’s right for the country at this time, because the time to act is now.” This statement was a part of Obama’s speech to beg colleagues to help pass the reform. With Election Day coming and closer and closer it is unlikely that either senator will increase any measure of criticism for the two monoliths. Fortunately, two legislatures are stepping up to bat as we speak.

Both Peter Welch (D-VT) and Benjamin Nelson (D-NE) have proposed 2 plans for accountability – one to prevent golden parachute payments for Mac and Mae execs (H.R.6907) and one resolution to express to the Senate “that the former chief executive officers of Fannie Mae should not receive lavish severance packages at taxpayers’ expense.” (S.RES.658) Will either of the proposals pass? It is highly unlikely, but the Chief Sponsors’ efforts shouldn’t go unnoticed – trying to a push accountability and criticism in a system that has too much money to receive it from the next President of the United States.

Obama on Iran: So much for Change

jared — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:59:46 +0000

For a presidential candidate running on the one-word campaign of “change”, Senator Obama has made some very disappointing choices, among which was choosing the 6^th longest running Senator in US history as his running mate. His disappointments most certainly extend to his clearly inexperienced and depth-lacking approach to foreign policy, as if the Democratic Party is immune to international conflict due to the past Republican President’s publicly unpopular war efforts. The serious of flip-flopping stances on Iran that Obama has taken certainly warrant a closer look into his stance on Iran and the questions that are raised in comparing his shifting opinions.

Seeing how Barack has only served in the Senate since 2004 the 5^th black US Senator has not had to truly take interest in US-Iran affairs until recently. His first stance paints a very different picture contrary to the “all diplomacy and no fight” approach he pairs with his charismatic smiles with on a daily basis. In an interview on October 1, 2004, as the highly anticipated 13^th District Illinois Senatorial race was coming to a close, the Chicago Tribune came across startling findings. The soon to be Senator was quoted declaring he would support the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it didn’t follow Washington’s demands for the abandonment of its nuclear program. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

The interview’s overall discoveries point to a less aggressive tone that Obama sticks so closely today, beginning with his personal investment pressure bill he introduced in May 17, 2007. S.1430, the bill he references in most interviews and debates covering Iran, aims to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to publish a roster of people that have made an investment totaling over $20 million in the energy sector within the country. The bill is 1of 71 that Obama has sponsored throughout the duration of his Senatorial career. The second most popular stance for Obama to take on Iran is that of economic sanctions – an option that hoards of UN failures and soured Cuban/Russian/US relations can be traced back to. But the real flip-flop that Senator Obama made was over a series of comments at a speech in Pendleton, Oregon on March 19, 2008.

“They (Iran) don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. (Naive are those people who believed that nuclear weapons have the potential to level the playing field in conflicts) If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” After comparing this to Obama’s previous support of missile use towards Iran, one should question whether or not the missile tactic approach was just for fun or if for some reason Iran poses a far less serious threat than it did four years later, despite the President’s determination to have Israel “wiped off the map” and its proud leveraging influence it has used on the international stage with its nuclear capabilities.

Lastly, if one were to follow Obama’s most recent rhetoric on Bush/Cheney’s lack of “principled democracy” and diplomatic negotiations, why would economic sanctions truly help? This sort of hard-line policy does a great job in providing a president’s people with renewed fire against an external force, leaving the population only with more reasons for wanting less talk (that Obama is overwhelmingly in favor of) and more action on the part for change that translates into economic policies that the people decide, not the external force that exerted the rough economic times in the first place. Whether or not one believes Iran’s nuclear program is far less threatening than the former Soviet’s, one cannot support the notion of enraging the people of a nation with a nuclear arsenal, expecting engagement to purely provide a solution. Iran has teeth, and whether or not Obama believes it would be good to fight back with tongue or not, he needs to choose a more definitive policy on Iran, especially considering its increasing nuclear might.

Obama vs. McCain on Russia- Whats the Difference?

jared — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:41:05 +0000

Author: Jared Fallon

Russia. No other country in recent past has had so many confirmed near-nuclear experiences, discolored alliances, and bitterly cold disputes with the United States. Many signs are clear that Russia wants its reemerging global presence to be known to all – while the United States is increasingly receiving pressure to slow down its rapid military spending habits and hegemonic pursuits. Many critics believe that since 2007 Russia announced its newest military doctrine the page has finally turned for the two rivals. Russia’s stance on NATO’s eastward expansion and the US’ presence in the region has never changed, viewing the moves as “reckless”, “dangerous”, and “not unnoticed.” Russia’s 07 doctrine outlines what its commanders should be preparing for if the nation were to get into war. This of course, coupled with Russia’s recent and worrisome Venezuelan agreements should have Americans questioning McCain’s and Obama’s plans for US-Russian relations.

In a consistent manner with most of the world Obama, in general, is seen with much higher favorability than his Republican opponent. The general perception that we hear is based on McCain’s warnings of “dangers posed by a revanchist Russia” and a sense of urgency to increase political pressures on the quickly strengthening Moscow. It is clear enough that the Arizona Senator’s plans for Russia will not be viewed favorably by both Putin and Medvedev. In addition, more recent comments from Palin in reference to Russia make it clear that no matter how foreign policy will be decided Russia will not appreciate the Republican Party. But what about Barack Obama? Despite the general American perception that Obama would be much more…tender, on Russia the reality is that no matter who wins November’s election affairs between the US and Russia can, and will become much, much more intense. How much more intense should be at the forefront of the respective countries’ citizens, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Senator Obama so far has played his overall stance on Russia down, allowing criticism to be directed at the Republican Party. But yet the facts point to a much more hard-line policy that leaves Moscow unsettled. Instead of Obama criticizing Bush’s lack of hard-line actions towards Russia Obama stated that the President “…proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power.” As the conflict between Georgia and Russian heightened Obama cited Russia has having no possible justification for the attacks, explaining further that Russia should not move towards a “regression to conflicts of the past”, ignoring the recent developments that NATO has taken closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Each of these developments received sharp criticism by most Russians in political circles. Shortly afterwards, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, compared Putin to Hitler – a risky move against a Prime Minister that continues to hold great sway over the country and its affairs. Furthermore, Stanford University Professor and Obama’s senior advisor on Russia, Michael McFaul, is viewed by Russian political officials as being “consistently harsh on political developments in Russia.”

McFaul is not only considered “Obama’s top Russia strategist” by Russian political officials, but is known for his sharp criticism of the Kremlin – especially in the area of foreign affairs. McFaul is deeply respected in the US for his council on Russian affairs and democratic policies around the globe but ironically shares many of the same views as McCain. Whether or not you believe Obama would take drastic measures on Russia, his political party affiliation must be taken into account as well. Despite the fact that Republicans are proving themselves to be extremely talented at long, drawn out wars, Democrats are not all as hug-friendly as Clinton was. The three biggest conflicts that shaped the 20^th century as we know it were all initially overseen by democrats. Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry Truman and the Cold War. Another interesting dimension is to remember Obama’s 6^th longest serving Senator in US history, Joe Biden. Biden’s subtle but strong criticism of Russia’s recent conflict with Georgia should not go unnoticed simply because he isn’t as obnoxious about the Alaskan Governor with no US-Russian relations experience.

If Obama does indeed take the presidency escalating urgency for improved affairs with Russia will not be as rosy as most Americans like to believe. Setting aside whether or not Obama follows in the footsteps of Democrats past, as Russia continues to show its reemerging presence time will only tell the degree to which the US will need to respond. The interesting factor is that it Russia will most likely not be able to tell the difference between McCain and Obama, which partially explains Russia’s latest bold military moves so close to Election Day. The lack of US foreign policy flexibility will prove to be a drastic problem for America as Russia gets back on its feet and starts running. Russia is simply becoming too great of a power with too many strings attached around the globe for the US to continue along its same lines of action. Sooner or later, as the US non-so-allies continue to strengthen relations with Russia, there will be a tipping point for change. We simply cannot remain on the same tedious tight rope we are balancing on right now. Either way, when examining Obama and McCain’s stances on Russia it becomes abundantly clear that Americans simply do not have much of a choice for this election unless something changes significantly within the next month. For further examination of these views, look up Obama’s most recent actions towards Russia or Google his support of NATO expansion and development.

The most vague proposal in US history?

jared — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:58:41 +0000

Author: Jared Fallon

The bill S.3297 should go down in history books as one of the most comprehensively vague bills ever proposed. The bill’s official description alone should raise red flags around the nation: “A bill to advance America’s priorities”. The bill was first proposed by Harry Reid and currently has 7 co-sponsors, including the heavy hitters Edward Kennedy, Joseph Lieberman, and Joe Biden. The sheer amount of topics covered by this bill should be enough for months of debate on end and yet the bills progress is moving quite rapidly despite the fact that it was introduced only two months ago.

Topics covered in the staggering 400 page proposal include increased Lou Gehrig’s Disease research and funding, the establishment of national paralysis programs, increased Secretary of Health and Human Service controls for vision care for children, Homeless Youth Act reforms, increased jurisdiction for the DOJ’s authority for child pornography investigation and prosecution, the establishment of the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 commemoration, amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (waterway regulation), increased funding for various Appalachian regional development programs, amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the authorization of funding over a 10-year period for “capital and prevent maintenance projects for the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority”…..the list goes ON and ON, and no bill to “Advance America’s priorities” should ever go without the establishment of a national ocean exploration and underseas research program with the NOAA. In order to truly appreciate the depth and breadth of this proposal you’ve got to see it for yourself.

Proposals like this are so power-packed with so many big supporters that one must question how many favors and friends are being satisfied in only 400 pages – these legislators truly are good friends to have. There is no implication here that any of these legislators are necessarily trying to propose all of these reforms unnoticed, but why does more transparency not exist? Chances are you’ve never heard of this proposal before reading this posting, but if you have ever heard of the Smithsonian, the Holocaust, the Great Lakes, the Department of Justice, the Star-Spangled Banner or debates on child pornography, this bill might be for you. Also, one of the upsides about this bill is if you have any other interests or hobbies not affected by the text above chances are you can find it here. Don’t take this posting’s word for it, please do check the proposal out for yourself and truly grasp the close relationship of vagueness and politics.

5 surprising marijuana facts you never imagined

jared — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:12:01 +0000

1. The founding fathers liked ganja

Dr. Burke of the American Historical Reference Society and consultant for the Smithsonian has found evidence to support the long standing claim that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson all either smoked or grew grass on their plantations.

2. Utah was the first state to ban marijuana

Amidst rising cannabis use by regional Mormons the church declared “the use of marijuana contrary to the Mormon religion” in 1915 and paved the way for America’s current prohibition.

3. Pot is the US’ biggest cash crop

Since 2006 weed has been more valuable to its growers that wheat and corn combined. US Pot production has increased tenfold in the past 25 years as California has emerged as the heaviest hitter, accounting for nearly one third of total US production. This has caused some people to believe that the US smokes the most, which brings us to:

4. Australia is the highest country in the world

It is estimated that the Aussies spend nearly double on cannabis every year than they do on total wine consumption. The next best Jacob’s Creek formula? 33% Cabarnet Sauvignon, 33% Syrrah, and 34% Cannabis.

5. Pending US legislation exits to legalize reefer

There are currently two of Barney Frank’s (D-MA) proposals that US Rastafarians would greatly appreciate. H.R.5842 hopes to make marijuana easily accessible for medical use while H.R.5843 seeks to “eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use…” So far the H.R.5842 has a surprising 23 cosponsors while the more risky proposal stands at 10. Do either of these bills stand a chance? We’ll have to see how they endure their current status of being held in committee status.

Welcoming the new Internet Czar

jared — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:34:16 +0000

Author: Jared Fallon

Session after session politicians continually craft new ways to get more control on the last free media frontier we have – the internet. The latest bill to pass is the worst one to come along this congressional session. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) S.3325 states its reason for existence is to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

Among the bills’ 63 pages includes the creation of “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” – an Internet Czar empowered to help the government sue for copyright infringement. The actual bill text states that the main goals of the act are to “enhance the efficiency and consistency” with Federal Funds in order to “enforce, investigate, or prosecute intellectual property crimes”. Consistent efficiency should never be valued above free, unrestricted journalism but as we all know, money talks. The supporters of the bill from the private sector include a handful of Hollywood personnel, the recording industry, various labor unions and the US Chamber of Commerce. On the con side we find hosts of freelance journalists and groups such as Public Knowledge, a Washington DC public interest group working to defend the future of the media frontier.

Other related pending legislation that also should be tracked includes H.R.4279 and S.522. The first seeks to create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while the latter aims to further increase intellectual property rights enforcement. For the most up-to-date information available on the web for this and other pending policies click here.

It will be interesting to see how this policy not only affects the future of current copyright infringement laws but future proposed legislation as well. To those spreading the word and maintaining dialogue out there don’t give up, this is an uphill war that just lost a battle.

Can NASA compete with China?

jared — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:13:01 +0000

Author: Jared Fallon
China has just displayed its recent emergence in the world as one of the tripolar powers in yet another new light: aerospace. China quite literally followed the footsteps of the United States and Russia by accomplishing its first-ever space walk on Sunday, September 28. China’s footprint is now imprinted in a pioneer of engineering success where only the US and Russia once dominated– adding to China’s surging national pride after Beijing opened its once-impregnable borders for the 08 Olympics. This development came only days after Chinese researchers reported they confirmed the theory behind the Emdrive – a topic met with controversial acceptance but if true would give China an unprecedented series of advantages in space satellites and military advancements.

Can the US keep up with China’s recent progress? No doubt America’s interest and funding in space programs are not as strong as the days of the Apollo Project, but where does America currently stand? For the most part, it appears that the overall US strategy is in trying to expand its support of science and math programs through education while improving general interest among the public for aerospace R&D. This direction appears to stems from the culturally different approaches the youth of the US and China are growing through. Around the time of America’s first space-walk NASA was in their prime in both funding initiatives and public support for the race to the moon – a unifying momentum that has no rival in present times. In terms of youth and education, the US is severely falling behind that of its rivals while China seems to be improving by leaps and bounds, driven by a popular urge on behalf of Chinese students to become the next Bill Gates. In contrast, the average US youth now seems more consumed with becoming the next pop icon than trying to pursue a career in nuclear engineering or physics.

Legislators around the nation are trying to remedy this situation from a ground-up approach by pursuing greater education opportunities in math and the sciences. Proposals include the massive 134 page H.R. 2272, a bill “To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.” This bill, much like several other pending proposals, outlines a comprehensive plan that includes coordinated efforts by NASA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Department of Energy, and other agencies in order to build momentum and public support for greater space initiatives. In addition, H.R.6063 – the authorization of “the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” – lists a very detailed approach for NASA’s future. Both bills are currently being debated and will greatly impact the future of American aeronautics if either is passed. For other aerospace-related bills, click here.

Illegal Immigration; Served Patriot Act Style

jared — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:01:30 +0000

Thou shall not run very far if Tim Mahoney’s (D-FL) newest legislation to attempt to “strengthen procedures regarding detention and removal of aliens” is passed. The Federal Representative’s H.R. 6843 was just referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 9, 2008 and contains several clear, but bold provisions regarding America’s legally confused illegal situation. One of the most pointed sections of the proposed legislation allows the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to “detain an alien beyond the 90-day period authorized…if the Secretary determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future;” Does this text ring a bell concerning past legislation in any way?

It could very well remind people of the equally government power substantiating Patriot Act that allows for the same sort of unchecked government action in regards to detainment. These sorts of policies allow for an increasingly greater amount of unquestioned control to be given to the government if enough reason is “determined” by government officials. H.R.6843 mirrors the Patriot Act in more ways than one. When reading through the proposed bill terms such as if “there is reason to believe that the release of the alien would threaten the national security of the United States;” and “that the release of the alien would likely have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;” can be found in abundance. Is this the sort of hard-line policies that America wants to help tackle our growing illegal alien situation? To see the official text or to find updates about this bill follow this link.

Poor Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – H.R.6864

jared — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:48:48 +0000

Author: Jared Fallon
The terms “global embarrassment” and “widespread panic” are understatements compared to what the former directors and executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are facing. After the Bush Administration seized control of the two home loan goliaths on September 8 heads have turned around the globe to the affects the takeover will have on US housing and financial markets and to what extent their impact will influence markets around the world. Together the two monoliths own or guarantee roughly $5 trillion of total US home loans, accounting for roughly half of the national total. To the dismay of the former directors and execs of Mac and Mae, several members of congress have introduced a painful blow to an optimistically anticipated soft landing.

The House Committee on Financial Services is currently reviewing H.R.6864, a proposal to “prohibit golden parachute payments for former executives and directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” The bill is being sponsored by Steve King (R-IA) and already has 27 cosponsors – a significant number due to the fact that the bill was first introduced in the House on September 10. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what tactics the politically-charged former directors and executives will utilize. The power packed political influence the members have is alarming, ranging from the former Secretary of the Senate to the former director of the FBI under President Clinton’s administration.

Election Relief Holiday

jared — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:29:08 +0000

Does anyone remember when presidential candidate John McCain called for a Gas Tax “Holiday” in April of 08 as Americans were priming themselves for the most expensive fuel prices experienced yet? We can’t help but imagine what our current policies would look like now, how McCain’s campaign would be affected, and whether or not such a shallow, short-term policy would have truly garnered any extra respect for this Arizona Senator. What I am proposing over this Presidential season is an “Election Holiday” – a break from the constant bombardment of details on the 08 Presidential Campaign and its affairs. A break that will allow us to recharge in the same manner that gas tax alleviation would have been appreciated, if only for a short amount of time. The logic between the two is actually quite similar.

McCain was simply looking for a near sighted relief to a growing present problem – one that affects a widespread population and tends to distract from greater economic and political goals. Why wouldn’t a break from the Presidential Election mumbo jumbo not equally be appreciated? This is not to undermine our political system or our adapted form of democracy, but to instead propose a new break along the same line of thought that many politicians seek short-term relief policies for – a time to reset, reflect, and recharge. In the haste and intensity of such a historical election it is important to not get lost in partisan politics nor details that are less consequential (i.e. Palin’s granddaughter scandal or Obama’s contagious smile). At such a crucial crossroads in American politics, we need not stray from our grander goals for reform – ranging from our current burdensome military policies to our aging infrastructure system, to our increasing tensions with our not-so-friends overseas. Let’s work for reform. Let’s work to not lose sight of our more intrinsic need for meaningful policies and get America where she needs to be.

South Korea announces bold energy plan; US should be embarrassed

admin — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:29:38 +0000

On August 27 South Korea’s President Lee Myung Bak announced a bold plan to “significantly reduce the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels” and at the minimum, quadruple the use of renewable energy by the year 2030. In this paradigm shift, South Korea’s plans include increasing the use of renewable energy sources by an average of 38 times the current level, the construction of 10 new nuclear power plants, a massive increase in the nation’s oil self-sufficiency, a boost in the development and production of fuel-cell cars, and improved energy efficiency grading systems for both the public and private sectors. Specific highlights of the new program include increases in:

- The amount of solar energy use by 44 times above the current level, biofuels by 19, and geothermal power by 51

- The nation’s self-sufficiency in oil and gas from 4.2 to 40 percent

- The amount of nuclear power used from the current 15 percent to 28 percent of the total expected energy consumption by the year 2030

In addition to the obvious benefits achieved by achieving significantly greater energy independence, the South Korean government expects the renewable and alternative energy sector to see the creation of 950,00 new jobs by the target date.

How does the US measure up?

While the current energy policy plans outlined by Congress are not even close to being temerarious enough, several legislatures as of late have been quite active in proposing legislation. Even though the current proposals do not rival South Korea’s most current policy in intensity, if such bills are indeed passed they would help form large waves of change in America, helping to pave the road to a more grounded energy policy. One such bill, S.3044, aims to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices. The bill is being sponsored by one of the most highly rated legislators (Harry Reid; D-NV) and is currently cosponsored by 23 other state senators.

Other pending bills of interest include H.R.6545 – a bill that would require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues and Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) S.3126 – a bill that would encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

Whether or not such bills are passed, it is irrefutable that the US does need a renewed sense of passion – a desire to achieve groundbreaking milestones of entrepreneurship, innovation, and excitement in regards to energy policies. As of late, amidst all of the increasing complaints of rising oil prices, politicians have pulled the “green card”- utilizing alternative and renewable energy topics at the forefront of their platforms. Will these long winded speeches ever equate to policies with substantial reforms? They need to, and they need to quickly if we are to have any hope for keeping up with other countries’ developments in the energy sector.

Russia says it’s capable of annihilating NATO’s Black Sea ships within 20 min!!

admin — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:53:30 +0000

On August 28, 2008 Russia’s General of Staff stated that “Despite the apparent strength, the NATO naval group in the Black Sea is not battle-worthy,” adding that Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO’s fleet “within 20 minutes”. Rising tensions between the US and Russia have diverted most of our attention to the Georgia/Russia conflict despite the fact that tensions are still incredibly high in the oil-rich Black Sea. For some time, US ally Turkey has been conducting extensive research with BP to explore the possibility of investing great sums of money within the region in its pursuit for greater energy independence. Security within the region is obviously a high priority.

To no surprise, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has pushed S.3001on the Hill in order to “authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy…”. As oil sources are coming under increasingly greater demands it is no wonder that such bills are being proposed – and of no coincidence that Senator Levin would like to expand the Department of Energy’s jurisdiction. Levin’s experience in such military and energy policies are quite extensive and include his current positions as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For Levin’s extensive record in serving the people of Michigan, click here.

GAO report finds most companies get around fed income tax; Good for them…

admin — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:44:10 +0000

In a recent report conducted by the General Accountability Office (GAO) it was found that roughly two thirds of US corporations found ways to avoid paying federal income taxes between the years 1998 and 2005. Additionally, it was found that 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the United States partook in the same exercise. The report was initially requested by Senators Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and Carl Levin (D-MI). Many people believe that it is unfair for these corporations to avoid such a tax but considering the complexities and time spent on complying, why wouldn’t they?

Despite the fact that the United States is home to one of the friendliest business climates in the world, it also is known to have one of the most complex federal tax codes that can, at times, encourage corporations to spend large sums of money to discover methods of tax evasion, rather than encourage innovation. The US increasingly causes both individuals and corporations to bare this monolithic burden that can, and should be made easier. Amidst the developments and changes that are matched with the newest waves of globalization, the US needs to figure out ways to help it become more welcoming not only for US entrepreneurs but foreign corporations as well. A simplified federal income tax code would help accomplish this and in turn, create more competitive benefits for America.

The end of the last free media frontier – i-Patriot Act-type sponsors

admin — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:30:03 +0000

The words we have all feared for so long are increasingly becoming a reality day after day. As forewarned at the 08 Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet”. Change is in the wind, and several key legislators are busier than ever thinking of new ways on how to use legislation as a tool to regulate the only true free frontier for media we have left.

At the time being, the two main federal bills to keep an eye on are: H.R.4279 and S.522. The first, sponsored by John Conyers Jr., (D-MI), would create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while attempting to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes.” S.522, on the other hand, is one of Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) bills and clearly only keeps the best of all of our mutual interests in mind by improving “…the effectiveness of domestic and international intellectual property rights enforcement…”. It is no coincidence that both of these congressmen have sponsored several bills together and have many friends of reciprocity. More dialogue must be created about these bills for the future of the internet and free media as we know it.

Obama wants change? Biden is merely the manifestation of Congress warmed over!

admin — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:33:42 +0000

The word “change” has become one of the most paramount and beaten to death aspects of the 2008 Presidential Election. Given the average American’s view of President Bush and the War in Iraq, for most people it is no wonder that such a simple slogan could literally be the one-word brand that reminds everyone of Barack Obama – a man of many firsts. Aside from landmarks such as being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and the first African American nominated for President by the Democratic Party, the dimensions Obama brings to this Presidential race are deep. The intriguing thing about Obama’s strategy for running predominately on the concept of change is that his VP pick is exactly the opposite of the kind of change that many Obama supporters desire.

Joe Biden is a seasoned product of the Hill that began his political career as a Delaware Senator when Obama was only 10 years old. Since then he has made many landmarks – most of which are not “change”, but a reincarnation of what many Obama supporters are avoiding the Republican Party for. Biden was not only awarded the “Face for the Future” by Time Magazine his first senatorial term but now stands as the sixth-longest serving senator in history. To get some insight into the long list of legislation Biden has been involved in, click here. For Obama and Biden dual-sponsored bills, click here. Is this the type of “change” Obama’s supporters are looking for? Obama might have just killed his chances.