Showing posts with label Armando Olmos. Show all posts

Saturday, November 19, 2011

The 2012 Election And The Ten Most Powerful States

With just less than a year to go until the 2012 election and most states having wrapped up their once-a-decade redistricting process, we’re starting to get a good sense about where the key House battles will take place.
A combination of an unpopular Congress, a volatile electorate, and changes resulting from redistricting mean there could be dozens of competitive races in just a handful of states.
But which states?
Today we look at 10 states that could determine whether Democrats retake the House or the GOP holds its majority next year.
To the Line!
10. New Hampshire: This state isn’t on the Line because of anything having to do with redistricting since it only has two congressional seats. Recent history has shown the state to be a central national battleground, however. Both New Hampshire seats went Democratic in 2006 when the party won the majority and then flipped to Republican when the GOP retook the House in 2010. And both will remain competitive next year, no matter how they are drawn. If Democrats win one of them, they’ve had a good night. If they win both, they’ve probably reclaimed the House again.
9. Ohio/Pennsylvania (tie): These states are really pretty similar so we’re lumping them together. In both states, the GOP is drawing the lines, but the current delegation is so heavily Republican that it’s hard to both add new opportunities and shore up their current members. Both states feature about five Republicans in swing districts that need to be strengthened. If the GOP can hold most or all of those seats on Election Day, they have probably done enough to hold the House.
8. North Carolina: The GOP targeted four – count ‘em, four – Tarheel State Democrats in redistricting and has a good chance against each. Here’s how the hierarchy goes: Republicans should be able to take Rep. Brad Miller’s seat, barring a real disaster. They also have a great chance to take Rep. Larry Kissell out. If the GOP can also beat Democratic Reps. Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre, they have probably held the House with ease.
7. Texas: Democrats got a huge break here when a Washington, D.C., court declined to pre-clear the Texas GOP’s aggressive redistricting map last week. The ensuing court battle means a San Antonio-based panel of judges will draw an interim map for 2012 – a map that is expected to move this from a state where the GOP would have gained three seats and Democrats one (the state is adding four new seats) to one where Democrats could gain four seats. Four seats would be huge for Democrats, given that they only need 25 nationally to retake the majority. At the same time, we have no idea what kind of map the judges will draw, and they may protect incumbents.
6. Colorado: A Denver judge last week picked a map that had been drafted by Democrats, which means this is a big opportunity for the party. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) is newly imperiled, and freshman Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) got a tougher district as well. Beating Coffman would be a particularly good sign since Democrats are trying to make the 2010 election about the extremeness of GOP incumbents. Coffman is very conservative but he’s also a proven campaigner with three statewide wins under his belt. If he loses in a district that still has a slight conservative lean that bodes poorly for GOP freshmen without such a track record in sometimes tougher districts.
5. Arizona: Guess what? Another break for Democrats here, after the state Supreme Court on Thursdayreinstated the chairwoman of the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission. Gov. Jan Brewer (R) and the GOP-led state Senate had removed the chairwoman because they saw the map the commission drafted as favoring Democrats. And indeed, Democrats will have chances. The map makes the state’s new district a Democratic-leaning one, endangers freshman Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and makes Rep.Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-Ariz.) district safer in case she can’t run for reelection. If Democrats can win all three of those seats, it’s going to go a long ways toward regaining the majority.
4. New York: Three people have complicated the Empire State’s redistricting process: Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and special election winners Kathy Hochul (D) and Bob Turner (R). Cuomo has suggested he might veto a partisan-drawn map, which could throw many seats up for grabs. The wins by Hochul and Turner earlier this year, meanwhile, complicated the calculus for which two seats will be eliminated. (The state is losing two seats due to population growth that lagged the national average.) But at the very least, plenty of Upstate districts have changed hands in recent years and many of them will continue to be competitive regardless of how the map is drawn.
3. Illinois: Democrats really reshuffled the map here and could win three, four or even five new seats. Democrats should be able to take seats left behind by Reps. Joe Walsh (R) and Adam Kinzinger (R), who are running in primaries against other GOP incumbents. They should also be able to beat Rep. Bob Dold (R) in the new 10th district. Beyond that, if they beat Rep. Bobby Schilling (R) they’re having a good night, and if they beat Rep. Tim Johnson (R) they may be able to win the House.
2. California: The nation’s biggest state has been an electoral afterthought for some time, going a nearly a decade with only one congressional seat changing hands between 2002 and 2010. That won’t happen again. At least three GOP-held seats are likely to go Democratic in the newly reshuffled map crafted by the state’s new citizen’s redistricting commission. But Democrats think they can run up the score even more, while the GOP strategists believe they can win Democratic-held seats elsewhere to even the score. We could see the results spanning from a total wash to Democrats gaining eight seats. Anything on the top end of that scale would be a major Democratic win.
1. Florida: This remains the biggest question mark still left in redistricting: Just how potent are Florida’s new redistricting standards? The constitutional amendments passed by voters last year try to rein in partisan gerrymandering. Republicans insist they will still be able to add two GOP-leaning seats on top of their 19-to-6 advantage in the state’s delegation. But if the amendments have teeth, Democrats could gain back a handful of seats – as many as five or six, according to their estimates. That’s a big swing. Of course, it all depends on what the courts do and so far the courts have been pretty good to Democrats.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

breaking news--Tea Party Government Shutdown

--Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tea Party Republicans are to blame for the government lurching toward a possible shutdown.

Durbin said this is the third time this year that Congress has been unable to agree on spending measures to keep the government funded. Each time, the possibility of a government shutdown has been raised.

"We're watching the Tea Party shutdown movie for the third time this year," he said in comments on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Thursday.
Durbin said that despite the obstructionism he believes is caused by the Tea Party, he is optimistic that President Obama's jobs bill has a chance of passing.

"There are Republican senators that are courageous, that are speaking up, who are saying we should do this on a bipartisan basis," said Durbin.
He told MSNBC that he thought Congress would be more open to compromise after returning from the August recess. "I thought the last thing in the world the Republicans would want to do is see another shutdown," said Dur

breaking news

Monday, September 19, 2011

Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., Times analysis shows - latimes.com

Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show

Fueling the surge are prescription pain and anxiety drugs that are potent, highly addictive and especially dangerous when combined with one another or with other drugs or alcohol.

Lori Smith of Aliso Viejo with photographs of her son Nolan, who died of a drug overdose in January 2009, six months shy of his 16th birthday. A toxicology test turned up Zoloft, which had been prescribed for anxiety, and a host of other drugs that had not been prescribed, including two additional anti-anxiety drugs, as well as morphine and marijuana. (Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times / September 18, 2011)

By Lisa Girion, Scott Glover and Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times

September 17, 2011, 2:55 p.m.

Propelled by an increase in prescription narcotic overdoses, drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States, a Times analysis of government data has found.

Drugs exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While most major causes of preventable death are declining, drugs are an exception. The death toll has doubled in the last decade, now claiming a life every 14 minutes. By contrast, traffic accidents have been dropping for decades because of huge investments in auto safety.

Public health experts have used the comparison to draw attention to the nation's growing prescription drug problem, which they characterize as an epidemic. This is the first time that drugs have accounted for more fatalities than traffic accidents since the government started tracking drug-induced deaths in 1979.

Fueling the surge in deaths are prescription pain and anxiety drugs that are potent, highly addictive and especially dangerous when combined with one another or with other drugs or alcohol. Among the most commonly abused are OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma. One relative newcomer to the scene is Fentanyl, a painkiller that comes in the form of patches and lollipops and is 100 times more powerful than morphine.

Such drugs now cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.

"The problem is right here under our noses in our medicine cabinets," said Laz Salinas, a sheriff's commander in Santa Barbara, which has seen a dramatic rise in prescription drug deaths in recent years.

Overdose victims range in age and circumstance from teenagers who pop pills to get a heroin-like high to middle-aged working men and women who take medications prescribed for strained backs and bum knees and become addicted.

A review of hundreds of autopsy reports in Southern California reveals one tragic demise after another: A 19-year-old Army recruit, who had just passed his military physical, took a handful of Xanax and painkillers while partying with friends. A groom, anxious over his upcoming wedding, overdosed on a cocktail of prescription drugs. A teenage honors student overdosed on painkillers her father left in his medicine cabinet from a surgery years earlier. A toddler was orphaned after both parents overdosed on prescription drugs months apart. A grandmother suffering from chronic back pain apparently forgot she'd already taken her daily regimen of pills and ended up double dosing.

Many died after failed attempts at rehab — or after using one too many times while contemplating quitting. That's apparently what happened to a San Diego woman found dead with a Fentanyl patch on her body, one of five she'd applied in the 24 hours before her death. Next to her on the couch was a notebook with information about rehab.

The seeds of the problem were planted more than a decade ago by well-meaning efforts by doctors to mitigate suffering, as well as aggressive sales campaigns by pharmaceutical manufacturers. In hindsight, the liberalized prescription of pain drugs "may in fact be the cause of the epidemic we're now facing," said Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health.

In some ways, prescription drugs are more dangerous than illicit ones because users don't have their guard up, said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Steve Opferman, head of a county task force on prescription drug-related crimes. "People feel they are safer with prescription drugs because you get them from a pharmacy and they are prescribed by a doctor," Opferman said. "Younger people believe they are safer because they see their parents taking them. It doesn't have the same stigma as using street narcotics."

Lori Smith said she believes that's what her son might have been thinking the night he died six months shy of his 16th birthday. Nolan Smith, of Aliso Viejo, loved to surf, sail and fish with his brother and father. He suffered from migraines and anxiety but showed no signs of drug abuse, his mother said.

The night before he died in January 2009, Nolan called his mother at work, asking for a ride to the girls basketball game at Aliso Niguel High School. Lori told him she couldn't get away.

When Nolan didn't come home that evening, his parents called police and his friends. His body was found the next morning on a stranger's front porch.

A toxicology test turned up Zoloft, which had been prescribed for anxiety, and a host of other drugs that had not been prescribed, including two additional anti-anxiety drugs, as well as morphine and marijuana.

All investigators could give the family were theories.

"They said they will have parties where the kids will throw a bunch of pills in a bowl and the kids take them without knowing what they are," Lori said. "We called all of his friends, but no one would say they were with him. But he must have been with someone. You just don't do that by yourself."

The triumph of public health policies that have improved traffic safety over the years through the use of seat belts, air bags and other measures stands in stark contrast to the nation's record on prescription drugs. Even though more people are driving more miles, traffic fatalities have dropped by more than a third since the early 1970s to 36,284 in 2009. Drug-induced deaths had equaled or surpassed traffic fatalities in California, 22 other states and the District of Columbia even before the 2009 figures revealed the shift at the national level, according to the Times analysis.

Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., Times analysis shows - latimes.com

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Social Networking Spurs Wall Street Protest - NY1.com

Social Networking Spurs Wall Street Protest

By: Nicole Ward

To view our videos, you need to
enable JavaScript. Learn how.
install Adobe Flash 9 or above. Install now.

Then come back here and refresh the page.

Protesters set up camp in Manhattan's Financial District Saturday for a demonstration stemming from the social networking site "Occupy Wall Street" that aims to last for months. NY1’s Nicole Ward filed the following report.

Lisa Fithian said she's not part of any official group and that the “occupation” of Wall Street is the work of many people coming together with the same message.

"Wall Street is certainly the heart of why we're here. It's the corporations — the big banks in this country have been destroying this country,” said Fithian. "Overfees or high mortgages, student loans, the banks are touching every aspect of our lives."

She added that banks and the wealthy have taken money for their own interests and their own survival.

“The people here are saying enough of that," said Fithian.

Inspired by events around the world, she drew the analogy to Tahrir Square in Egypt and said the power of the people is leading to change.

"I'm here, I'm tweeting," said one protester.

The protest was also being streamed live around the world, and one protester estimated that at least 5,000 people were watching.

People brought sleeping bags and cardboard boxes and planned to spend at least one night.

"We as the people who are not investment banks need to come up with a different solution to the way things are going right now,” said a protester.

This event was largely organized by a social networking site called Occupy Wall Street.

Social Networking Spurs Wall Street Protest - NY1.com

Paul Ryan accuses Obama of ‘class warfare’ over millionaire tax

Nation

World

Science/Tech

Biz/Money

Political Satire/Parody

Culture

Say What?

Activism

Paul Ryan accuses Obama of ‘class warfare’ over millionaire tax

Posted on 09.18.11
By David Edwards
Categories: Biz/Money, Featured

A top House Republican said Sunday that President Barack Obama was engaging “class warfare” with a proposal to tax millionaires at a higher rate.

The so-called “Buffet rule” would make sure millionaires pay about the same tax rate as the employees that work for them. It’s named after billionaire Warren Buffet, who has said that he is taxed at a rate of about 17.4 percent, while his secretary is taxed at a rate of about 36 percent.

“If you tax something more, Chris, you get less of it,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) told Fox News’ Chris Wallace. “Class warfare, Chris, may make for really good politics, but it makes for rotten economics. We don’t need a system that seeks to divide people and prey on peoples’ fear, envy and anxiety. We need a system that creates jobs and innovation, and removes these barriers for entrepreneurs to go out a rehire people. I’m afraid these kinds of tax increases don’t work.”

“This is being called the ‘Buffet rule” because it comes after Warren Buffet, the multi-billionaire owner of Berkshire Hathaway said, ‘I get so much of my money from capital gains, I end up paying a lower effective tax rate than my secretary who gets her money in salary,’” Wallace noted. “What about the question of fairness, sir?”

“What he forgets to mention is that is a double tax,” Ryan insisted. “Capital gains and dividends are taxes on money that has already been taxed once before based on income… It looks like the president wants to move down the class warfare path. Class warfare will simply divide the country more, attack job creators, divide people and it doesn’t grow the economy.”

Watch this video from Fox’s Fox News Sunday, broadcast Sept. 18, 2011.

Watch this video on iPhone/iPad

Share this video >>

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Daily Kos: Bernie Sanders goes against grain, introduces real plan to save Social Security

Bernie Sanders goes against grain, introduces real plan to save Social Security

by Joan McCarter

10.6K 40

permalink	166 Comments

(Brian Snyder/Reuters)

Here's a chance for some small measure of sanity to be introduced into the Catfood Commission II's work, and the larger debate about deficits and the safety net, if Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) can get enough cosponsors and momentum behind his efforts.

Sanders, one of the Senate’s staunchest liberals, is proposing to make individual income higher than $250,000 per year subject to the payroll tax—an idea he says he is lifting from President Obama’s 2008 campaign for the White House.
As it stands, the payroll tax, which funds Social Security, applies to up to $106,800 of annual income. The Sanders bill would not impose the payroll tax on income between that level and $250,000.

In a Thursday news release, the Vermont senator said he was also worried that the new supercommittee tasked with finding additional ways to reduce the deficit will try to find savings through cuts to Social Security. One method that has already been discussed would involve switching to the so-called "chained CPI," an alternate form of inflation that would lead to a slower increase in Social Security benefits.

"Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress—and too many Democrats—have been discussing harmful cuts to Social Security as part of an overall scheme to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children and working families," Sanders said.[...]

According to Sanders's office, the chief actuary for Social Security says the senator's proposal to make the payroll tax applicable at higher income levels would create enough new revenue to keep the program solvent for the next 75 years.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has a similar bill in the House, introduced in February. Neither piece of legislation is likely to see actual action, particularly on the House side, but a strong showing of cosponsors of both bills could, maybe, influence their colleagues on the Super Congress, the Democrats, anyway. If you have a Democratic representative or senator(s), call them and ask them to co-sponsor these bills. If you happen to be represented by a member of the Super Congress (Sens. Patty Murray, Max Baucus, John Kerry and Reps. Jim Clyburn, Chris Van Hollen, Xavier Becerra) give a few extra calls.

At the very least, it's the smartest policy response for ensuring Social Security's future and kudos to Sen. Sanders for attempting to take the discussion beyond austerity.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Aug 25, 2011 at 12:55 PM PDT.

Also republished by Social Security Defenders and Daily Kos.

Daily Kos: Bernie Sanders goes against grain, introduces real plan to save Social Security

In The Face Of Historically Low Taxes, O'Reilly Claims Taxation Is "Strangling The U.S. Economy" | Media Matters for America

Fox host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "rampant taxation" is "strangling the U.S. economy." But the total U.S. tax burden is "at [the] lowest level since [19]58," and the economy and employment grew at high levels under the Clinton administration, when federal income taxes were higher.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

O'Reilly Claims Taxation Is "Strangling The U.S. Economy"

O'Reilly: "Your Take-Home Pay Is Being Gutted By The Rampant Taxation. That's What's Strangling The U.S. Economy." On the September 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that Americans' "take-home pay is being gutted by the rampant taxation" and concluded, "That's what's strangling the U.S. economy. ... Punishing taxation is bleeding us." From the broadcast:

O'REILLY: Now, the Obama administration says it will continue the payroll tax cut for working Americans, while it wants to increase the income tax rate on the affluent and corporations. But all Americans are being battered by a variety of hidden taxes. Here is the grim news: in New York state, where I live, not only do we pay a federal income tax, but also a state income tax, and in places like New York City, a local income tax as well.

New York gasoline tax, 45 cents a gallon, the highest in the nation. Cigarette tax, $2.75 a pack. Sales tax collections average about $1,700 per New Yorker. That includes Baby Huey. $1,700 for every man, woman and child living in the state -- sales tax. Property tax, close to $2,000 per person. Toll revenue, $86 a person. New driver's license cost you $80. Cell phone tax and fees, 23 percent of your bill every month.

The list goes on and on and on. I'm exhausted. I can't even list anymore.

So you can see if you're a working person in New York or California or New Jersey or Massachusetts or most other states, your take-home pay is being gutted by the rampant taxation. That's what's strangling the U.S. economy. Consumers can't buy stuff without incurring even more debt. Punishing taxation is bleeding us. And these taxes continue to go up because the states and cities are bankrupt. Why are they bankrupt? Because of pensions, health care costs, corruption, and general irresponsibility with our tax dollars. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/14/11]

But Total Tax Burden Is "At [The] Lowest Level Since '58," And Federal Taxes Are At "Historically Low Levels"

USA Today: "U.S. Tax Burden At Lowest Level Since '58." In a May 5 article, USA Today reported:

Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The total tax burden -- for all federal, state and local taxes -- dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s -- a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year.

[...]

USA TODAY examined the full range of taxes that individuals pay to all levels of government. That includes income taxes for Medicare, property taxes for schools and gas taxes for roads.

At the national average, a person with an income of $100,000 would pay $23,600 in taxes today vs. $28,700 in 2000 and $27,300 in 1990. [USA Today, 5/5/11]

CBPP: "With [Obama's] Making Work Pay Tax Credit, The Median Family's Federal Income Taxes ... [Are] Lower Than In Any Year Since 1955 ... Except For 2009." A report updated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) on April 15 found that "[m]iddle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels." From the report:

Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That's true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.

Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.7 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the third-lowest percentage in the past 50 years, after 2008 and 2009.
Overall federal taxes: Middle-income households are paying overall federal taxes -- which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes -- at or near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

[...]

This year and last, the Making Work Pay tax credit, which President Obama and Congress enacted as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is providing a credit of $800 to married joint filers ($400 to single filers). A median-income family with two children thus will receive an $800 tax cut in the return it files this year.

With the Making Work Pay tax credit, the median family's federal income taxes will equal just 4.7 percent of its income in 2010. That is lower than in any year since 1955 (the first year for which these data are available) except for 2009, when taxpayers also received the Making Work Pay credit, and 2008, when another stimulus-related tax cut was in effect.

The post also included the following chart illustrating the average federal income tax rate since 1955:

CBPP Tax Chart

[CBPP, 4/15/11]

Former Reagan Adviser Bartlett: As Percentage Of GDP, "Federal Taxes Are At Their Lowest Level In More Than 60 Years." Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, wrote in a May 31 post on the New York Times blog Economix: "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget." From his post:

Historically, the term "tax rate" has meant the average or effective tax rate -- that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan's administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

[...]

The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment. [Economix, The New York Times, 5/31/11]

Bartlett: "[F]ederal Taxes Are Very Considerably Lower By Every Measure Since Obama Became President." In a March 19, 2010, post on Forbes.com, Bartlett wrote that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year":

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies. [Forbes.com, 3/19/10]

AP: "You Wouldn't Know It By The Tax Day Rhetoric, But Americans Are Paying Lower Taxes This Year." The Associated Press reported on April 14, 2010, "You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets." While noting that in future years, some taxes may increase for some Americans, the article said that "Tax Day rhetoric" does not match the reality of Americans' tax burdens today. From the article:

Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states

[...]

The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.

The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars. [AP, 4/14/10, via Yahoo Finance]

And Economic Growth Was High During Clinton Presidency, When Tax Rates Were Also Higher

PolitiFact: "Most [Economists] Agree That The [Clinton] Tax Increases Did Not Appear To Hinder Job Growth." In a July 6 post, PolitiFact fact-checked President Obama's claims about

In The Face Of Historically Low Taxes, O'Reilly Claims Taxation Is "Strangling The U.S. Economy" | Media Matters for America

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Bad AT&T Deal Disconnected; Consumer Watchdog Applauds Justice Department for Filing Complaint to Block AT&T/T-Mobile Merger | Consumer Watchdog

Merger

News Release

Bad AT&T Deal Disconnected; Consumer Watchdog Applauds Justice Department for Filing Complaint to Block AT&T/T-Mobile Merger

8/31/2011

Contact Info

Name:

Harvey Rosenfield, Laura Antonini & John M. Simpson

Phone Number:

Harvey, 310-392-0522 ext. 304; Laura Antonini, ext. 318; or John, 310-392-7041

SANTA MONICA, CA -- Consumer Watchdog applauded the U.S. Justice Department today for filing a civil antitrust complaint to block the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger, calling it a victory for cell phone consumers, and urged the Federal Communications Commission to reject the deal as well.
Earlier this month, Consumer Watchdog wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and the California Public Utilities Commission, pointing out that the very same promises of better services and cheaper prices that AT&T makes today it also made back in 2004, when it sought permission to merge with Cingular, only to betray those promises after federal officials approved the deal.
Consumer Watchdog’s letter calls attention to the negative impacts that the 2004 merger had on consumers:

"After the Federal Communications Commission approved the deal with negligible scrutiny, the newly merged company - which later renamed itself AT&T Mobility LLC- betrayed its promises. It abandoned the old AT&T network, deliberately degrading the network so that AT&T customers would be forced to migrate to Cingular's own network, pay an upgrade fee of $18, buy new phones and agree to new and more expensive rate plans. These anti-consumer moves were enforced by an anti-competitive 'early termination fee' of anywhere between $175 and $400, which prevented customers of AT&T from moving to another carrier.

"In short, AT&T policyholders were railroaded into spending hundreds of dollars more in order to maintain their cellular service - a colossal rip-off by the same corporate executives who are now asking for permission to do it all over again."
Read Consumer Watchdog’s letter opposing the AT/T-Mobile merger here:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/cwd_att_merger_letter_final.pdf

Consumer Watchdog's lawyers subsequently brought a nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T in 2006 seeking refunds for AT&T's customers. AT&T continues to fight that lawsuit, claiming that its customers are barred from suing AT&T in courts and must take their dispute to secret arbitration panels paid for by AT&T.

The Justice Department’s complaint seeks a declaration that AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile would violate U.S. antitrust law. Upon making the announcement, Justice Department officials said the deal would result in reduced competition which would in turn lead to higher prices, poor wireless service quality, and less choices for consumers.
“The last thing beleaguered American consumers need right now is higher prices and shoddier cell phone service. That’s exactly what would happen if AT&T was permitted to buy T-Mobile. The FCC should join DOJ in opposing this anti-competitive proposal,” said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog and one of the lawyers in the 2006 lawsuit against AT&T.
- 30 -

Consumer Watchdog is a non-partisan public interest organization with offices in Santa Monica, CA and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit us on the web at

http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

Bad AT&T Deal Disconnected; Consumer Watchdog Applauds Justice Department for Filing Complaint to Block AT&T/T-Mobile Merger | Consumer Watchdog

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Fed hands banks a win with debit card rule - The Hill's On The Money

Banks might have lost the broader war over debit-card fees, but they scored a small victory Wednesday when the Federal Reserve proposed a fee less severe than originally intended.

The central bank’s decision brought to a close a long and contentious lobbying battle on Capitol Hill.

Fed hands banks a win with debit card rule - The Hill's On The Money

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Republicans Speak For The Rich

Yet Again, Republicans Package Tax Cuts for the Rich and Killing off Consumer and Environmental Protections as a "Jobs Plan"
Here is a fact: today when you hear from Republicans you are hearing from Wall Street, giant oil companies, huge multinational firms and a few billionaires, period.

The Republicans The Party Of The Rich

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Bin Laden Death Adds to Bulls’ Clout After Europe, Quake

Yesterday’s market reaction was “basically noise,” Lee said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” with Betty Liu. “It’s positive because people have been avoiding stocks because they think they’ve been risky, and part of it is global security. This is going to basically really boost inflows into stocks.”

Shares Decline

U.S. stocks retreated yesterday, pulling the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index down 0.2 percent to 1,361.22 after it reached the highest level since June 2008. Yields on 10-year notes fell one basis point, or 0.01 percentage point, to 3.28 percent at 5:11 p.m. in New York, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices, after rising as much as three basis points.

Bin Laden's Death Will Boost Stock Profits

Friday, April 29, 2011

The Oil Company Gusher

Exxon-Mobil's first quarter earnings of $10.7 billion are up 69 percent from last year. That's the most profit the company has earned since the third quarter of 2008 — perhaps not coincidentally, around the time when gas prices last reached the lofty $4 a gallon.

This gusher is an embarrassment for an industry seeking to keep its $4 billion annual tax subsidy from the US government, at a time when we're cutting social programs to reduce the budget deficit.

It’s specially embarrassing when Americans are paying through their noses at the pump.

Exxon-Mobil's Vice President asks that we look past the "inevitable headlines" and remember the company's investments in renewable energy.

This gusher is an embarrassment for an industry seeking to keep its $4 billion annual tax subsidy from the US government, at a time when we're cutting social programs to reduce the budget deficit.

It’s specially embarrassing when Americans are paying through their noses at the pump.

Exxon-Mobil's Vice President asks that we look past the "inevitable headlines" and remember the company's investments in renewable energy.

Exxon-Mobil’s first quarter earnings of $10.7 billion are up 69 percent from last year. That’s the most profit the company has earned since the third quarter of 2008 — perhaps not coincidentally, around the time when gas prices last reached the lofty $4 a gallon.
This gusher is an embarrassment for an industry seeking to keep its $4 billion annual tax subsidy from the U.S. government, at a time when we’re cutting social programs to reduce the budget deficit.
It’s specially embarrassing when Americans are paying through their noses at the pump.
Exxon-Mobil’s Vice President asks that we look past the “inevitable headlines” and remember the company’s investments in renewable energy.
What investments, exactly? Last time I looked Exxon-Mobil was devoting a smaller percentage of its earnings to renewables than most other oil companies, including the errant BP.
In point of fact, no oil company is investing much in renewables — precisely because they’ve got such money gusher going from oil. Those other oil companies also had a banner first quarter, compounding the industry’s embarrassment about its $4 billion a year welfare check.

This gusher is an embarrassment for an industry seeking to keep its $4 billion annual tax subsidy from the US government, at a time when we're cutting social programs to reduce the budget deficit.

It’s specially embarrassing when Americans are paying through their noses at the pump.

Exxon-Mobil's Vice President asks that we look past the "inevitable headlines" and remember the company's investments in renewable energy.

What investments, exactly? Last time I looked Exxon-Mobil was devoting a smaller percentage of its earnings to renewables than most other oil companies, including the errant BP.

In point of fact, no oil company is investing much in renewables — precisely because they've got such money gusher going from oil. Those other oil companies also had a banner first quarter, compounding the industry's embarrassment about its $4 billion a year welfare check.

This gusher is an embarrassment for an industry seeking to keep its $4 billion annual tax subsidy from the US government, at a time when we're cutting social programs to reduce the budget deficit.

It’s specially embarrassing when Americans are paying through their noses at the pump.

Exxon-Mobil's Vice President asks that we look past the "inevitable headlines" and remember the company's investments in renewable energy.

What investments, exactly? Last time I looked Exxon-Mobil was devoting a smaller percentage of its earnings to renewables than most other oil companies, including the errant BP.

Politicians Are Married To Big Oil

Saturday, April 23, 2011

The Price The Middle Class Pay Into Social Security

As a tax professional I have been concerned about the taxability of SS benefits for years. The base amount for calculating the taxable amount of benefits has not changed since SS benefits first became taxable in 1984.
As a comparison here is how some other income tax items changed since 1984:
Personal Exemption - up 265%
Standard Deduction, single - up 148%
Standard Deduction, married - up 235%
Taxable Income where highest tax bracket kicks in, single - up 370%
Taxable Income where highest tax bracket kicks in, married - up 135%
YET THE BASE INCOME AMOUNT TO INCUR INCOME TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS HAS NOT CHANGED AT ALL!

The Middle Class Are Paying Too Much Into Security Security

Monday, April 18, 2011

The Tea Party Is Disappearing

The attack on Labor Unions continues; 22 states are trying to bust the labor unions. They want to privatize social services to give more money to corporations.

Sarah Palin And Her Tea Party Followers Are Fading