DOMA is Dead. Prop. 8 is Dead. Pride Month is ending on a strong note. Still gotta deal with it, though.

On Wednesday, June 26th, the Supreme Court, in a historic pair of decisions, struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), effectively rendering it moot, and via a procedural action, also effectively struck down California's Proposition 8, ruling that it's proponents do not have standing to defend the act if the state refused to do so. Today, acting under the instructions the Supreme Court spelled out in it's Majority Opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the stay it imposed on marriages while it was on appeal, clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume. 

As a long time supporter for LGBTQ Rights, I was ecstatic when I found out about the decisions. I found out at work, and just settled into my desk after arriving from the last day of school when I received a notification on my tablet - the Supreme Court had just overturned DOMA and effectively struck down Prop. 8. As soon as I heard this, I have to admit, I shed a few tears - mainly because a huge stigma had been lifted on more then a few people I know. One of my closest friends is gay, and through my various jobs, a good number of my co-workers identified themselves as LGBTQ.

But for me, it's more then just knowing a few people that are gay that makes this a passionate issue for me. For me, it's just a basic principle of equality, freedom, and civil rights - "with liberty and justice for all." Love is a strong emotion, one of the strongest emotions there is, and to say that a few select group of people can deny attempt to deny that emotion, based on a book that was wirrten by a group of men over 2,000 years ago or through their own non-sensical thoughts is just a sad, sickening, maddening thought. Who are we, as imperfect humans, tell other whom they can love? If anybody claims they have that right, I'm sorry, but that is just plain bulls#!t.

My own mom, when we discuss this, often she says to me that she admires the LGBTQ community, because, as she puts it -

The LGBTQ people are a very strong group of people. To be able to withstand a lot, from people denying their humanity to people killing them solely because they love someone, they are very strong. I admire them, and I feel for them. Why do people treat like that? Why? There is no reason whatsoever that they should be oppressed  spat upon, solely for whom they love.

Honestly, mom, I don't know. I wish I knew, but I don't.

Law & Society: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary?

In this latest installment of Law and Society, in which I have a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law class homework response, one of the questions I received was this: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? The following is my response to this question, and hopefully, it will cause some questions or debates to go off inside your head. Enjoy.


Question: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? 

Response: The use and effect of the Death Penalty has been debated ever since it has been used, in essence, form the beginning of time. However, as time progressed, opposition against the death penalty has grown, and today, there is huge debate whether to continue applying the penalty or to abolish it. Most states today have abolished the death penalty, or have not applied it to use in along time. New York State, for example, has outlawed the death penalty since 2005. Some states continue to allow the active use of the death penalty, and some take their relaxed restrictions to the extremes (see Texas). Globally, the United States is part of shrinking group of countries that actively uses the death penalty, and the countries we share company with in that group are the complete opposites of us, such as Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Indonesia, to name a few, and almost all have serious human rights violations. 

The Death Penalty is an unnecessary, barbaric, and unjust way to punish crime and their results. As Justice William Brennan stated in his concurring opinion in the case Furman v. Georgia, 

“Death is truly an awesome punishment. The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity. The contrast with the plight of a person punished by imprisonment is evident. An individual in prison does not lose "the right to have rights." A prisoner retains, for example, the constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, and to treatment as a "person" for purposes of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. A prisoner remains a member of the human family. Moreover, he retains the right of access to the courts. His punishment is not irrevocable. Apart from the common charge, grounded upon the recognition of human fallibility, that the punishment of death must inevitably be inflicted upon innocent men, we know that death has been the lot of men whose convictions were unconstitutionally secured….the punishment itself may have been unconstitutionally inflicted….yet the finality of death precludes relief. An executed person has indeed "lost the right to have rights." As one 19th century proponent of punishing criminals by death declared, "When a man is hung, there is an end of our relations with him. His execution is a way of saying, `You are not fit for this world, take your chance elsewhere.'” 

In essence, while death is an extreme punishment, the very notion of the state planning the death of one person is virtually denying their humanity. And the death penalty isn’t applied equally. A study known as the Baldus Study has shown that minorities who have committed a violent crime and face the death penalty have a bigger chance of being punished with death the white and Caucasians criminals do. It also discovered that minorities who were accused of killing a white person also had a great chance of receiving the death penalty then did a white person who was accused of killing a minority. As Justice William Murphy said, 

“Only by zealously guarding the rights of the most humble, the most unorthodox and the most despised among us can freedom flourish and endure in our land....” 

Death as a punishment does not guard our freedoms- it revokes them from us, and we need to protect our rights, even if it means guarding the rights of the most violent criminals. And the death penalty doesn’t address the root cause of crime in the first place- most criminals come from poor, broken families, and killing the guy doesn't pull the person out of poverty. When people are poor, they will do anything to get out, and some will resort to crime. Instead of executing, we need to help those families who are poor and need assistance, to help receive a good upbringing, with a quality education, without the stigma of being poor. And the death penalty doesn’t do that. It doesn't solve anything- if one guy is executed, another will be there to take his place. It is barbaric, inhuman, and it is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime, even for murder. I therefore respectfully dissent against the use of the death penalty, and in favor of repealing it as a method of punishment.     


Law and Society: This the second in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.   

So, how to deal with in regards to immigration?

As we all know, immigration is one of the most controversial and divisive topics that out nation is facing right now, as well as being one of the hardest to solve- and inaction on this topic isn't helping. Some states, such as Alabama and Arizona, have tried to regulate this problem- by trying make immigration law themselves, yet these laws push the limits of civil rights. So in response, here is my basic framework in regards to immigration reform. 


My Plan for Immigration Reform


For People Who Committed Major (Felony) Crimes- (Rape, Assault, Homicide, Robbery, etc.)

• They must be deported, no questions asked. These people damage the reputation of immigrants everywhere, and letting them stay here won't help the problem. These are the type of people, along with gang members, that DHS should be concentrating on. Of course, they will be a given a hearing with their entitled rights, but if they are found guilty, the only punishment would be deportation.   

For People Who Are In Good Social Standing

• Must be living 7-10 Years in the United States or more.
• Preference given if they have a family and/or kids who are under the Age of 18.  
• They must be paying their taxes, or be on their way to paying off their debt to Uncle Sam.
• Must undergo a background check.
• Pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).

A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

This makes the government money, and allows a difficult, but possible, path to citizenship for illegals who have been living here and on otherwise good behavior under the old and flawed system, and it is NOT a handout. This is different from the dud of 1986, which basically gave anyone amnesty. This also makes new, desperately needed source of revenue for the government.  

• In the case of military service, 5 years of service with an honorary discharge from any branch of Armed Forces would be satisfactory to establish citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived.
• Children or people who came as very young children and managed to get at least an Associates or a Master Degree, or have contributed Military Service to this country would also be allowed to apply for citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived on a case by case basis, however.   

This would be the basic requirements for the majority of immigrants here in the United States. 

For People Who Committed Minor Crimes. 

• MUST have not committed any crime for 5 Years 
• Paid their taxes.
• Must know English.
• Must pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).
• A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

Another aspect of this plan would also include on going after employers who use immigrant labor, mainly because they know that immigrants would work for whatever wages, as long as it is work. Usually, immigrants are exploited, because they know that immigrants usually fear reporting such abuses to the proper authorities because of their status.  I would not mandate the the use of E-Verify, since it is still a work in progress, but employers would be subject to audits from time to time. This, in all, is my plan for immigration reform. Now, lets talk about those laws, shall we?

The proponents of the majority of these new laws in Alabama, Arizona, and other states say that because illegal immigrants, are well, illegally here, they are not entitled to any of the rights that U.S. Citizens are entitled to. The great majority also argue for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Well, looks like some people either aren't brushed up on their political history, don't care about Constitutional Law, or weren't paying attention when taking Political Science. Why do we call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select people  and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people. Some people argue that... 

"Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do." 

To this, I say BS. So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? That they don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some really terrible conditions. Those who claim that immigrants don't contribute much to the U.S. and that their rights should be infringed might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize their position.  Now, one of their favorite responses to this seems to be that since 

"Illegals are not citizens, therefore they have not consented to the American government that provides these rights to those who, as citizens, have consented to the American form of government. Therefore the American government does not exist to guarantee illegal immigrants these rights, only people who ARE citizens, or who are here legally in accordance with the very rules of the government that would provide them with those rights in the first place."

Well, since, that would be a violation of human rights. Since they aren't U.S. Citizens, they aren't entitled to their rights, eh?  So, let's say an immigrant has been accused of a crime- would he be given a fair and speedy trial, or would he be immediately assumed guilty, since as a non-citizen, he has no right to a fari trial and be sent to prison with due process of the law? That would be a violation of what America stands for- liberty and justice for all. Or if somebody committed a crime against an immigrant- would that person be prosecuted under the law, would he be let free without any sort of trial, simply because the victim is an illegal immigrant, and as such, has nor right to bring up a claim because he is not a citizen, and thus, not entitled to his rights? Now, the 14th Amendment. Many people are arguing for the repeal of that amendment, because it promotes immigration by allowing for so-called 'anchor babies," and since anyone born here is entitled to U.S. Citizenship, they are also entitled to the benefits that come to it.  Well, first of all, the benefits are only for the child, not for the parent, and second of all, Why? You would be depriving a chance for the child to become a potential asset to this country, to allow that child to aspire for his dreams in the greatest country in the world. Look, I'm the son of illegal immigrants. I work hard in school (my grades show it), I read The New York Times, I'm deeply interested in law, politics, and history- and I was born here, thus I am a U.S. Citizen. What about the other kids who are just like me, or are similar to me, but yet wouldn't be citizens if the 14th Amendment is repealed? What would happen to them? Should they let their dreams die away? What about me? Would I get my citizenship taken away because I just happened to be the son of illegal immigrants? I already mentioned in an earlier blog post about the rights of immigrants under the 14th Amendment. Let's see, has the U.S. Supreme Cout affirmed other rights for immigrants? I'm hearing they have. Let' see..

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• Truax v. Raich
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins
• Oyama v. California
• Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission
• Graham v. Richardson

Wow. All those cases that affirmed the rights of immigrants, and are still in force today. Man, leaves you something to think, eh? Yet, we must continue to fight these laws, and challenge these laws forcefully in court as the deprivation of liberties, using these cases as ammo. We can only hope. 

Thoughts on Independence Day.

Today is July 4th, the 235th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which formerly symbolized the independence of the thirteen original colonies from Great Britain. It contains some some of the most inspirational words in the history of man, and with oft-quoted words being

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These words have served as an inspiration for generations of people, from the French (see- French Revolution) to Germany, to Canada, and even Ho Chi Minh to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It represents a moral standard to which the United States of America must strive for, a ringing bell to improve the plight of those who suffer. Yet, when this was adopted, we couldn't completely say this phrase without keeping a straight face, because slavery was prevalent at the time, a stunning contrast to the phase that "all men are created equal." As time went on, we slowly began to push this phrase closer to reality, but we still couldn't say it  with certainty. Jim Crow was still around, making men unequal among us. Today, Jim Crow is gone, thanks to the civil rights movement who struggled make sure that this famous phrase was applied to the South. But today, we still cannot say with utmost certainty that "all men are created equal." Today, scores of new laws passed in states around the nation are tailored to deny that immigrants are among the men that are created equal, when the great majority come here to work and respect this country- and grateful to it for the chances it gives. Most of these laws are copycat versions of the original law enacted in Arizona, S.B 1070. Some of the most draconian laws, such as the one in Alabama, which requires, in a blatantly and discriminatory manner, requires public school districts to determine the immigration status of it's own students and their parents and report them states. Furthermore, it provides a challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government...Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation...Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

 As The New York Times aptly states,

The state’s law seems designed to challenge that ruling, as it turns school officials into de facto immigration agents and impels frightened parents to keep their children home.      

We still have along way to go in order to ensure that "all men are created equal" and that all men are ensured with unalienable Rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet, we closer to reaching those goals than most of the countries around the world are. We have a long way to go, but let us remember that we must strive to uphold those goals and that statement with the utmost regard, to everyone who lives and resides in this nation, in the United States of America. 


Happy Independence Day, people. Happy 235th birthday, America.    

Yes, my opinions regarding misinfomation can be explained via The Daily Show.

As a liberal, it often pains me when misinformation is spread around the American public, especially about American politics. Now, I could write a whole blog post about this (Looking at you, Fox News), but instead of going on and on and possibly boring you guys, I have decided instead to post two clips from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. You might ask yourself, why I am posting this? Well, it makes the same points I intended to make, only in a funnier and more charismatic way, and it will explain it more fully and more clearly. All credits regarding political points and jokes are attributed to Comedy Central & The Daily Show, as well as Jon Stewart.

For the first video, skip ahead to the 1:45 minute, and watch from there on if you want to see my point.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fox News Channel - Fair & Balanced
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Second Video (below) gets straight to the point- and in a comical fashion.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fox News False Statements
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

As Jon Stewart said at the end about Fox News, "They got a lot of f**king correcting to do."

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 4)

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any new regulation or taxes that is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

To balance the budget, you must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. It's just common sense. Sure, it'll  involve make some tough choices, but when you have a growing deficit and debt, those choices are really necessary. Those who do make those tough choices and follow through with it display leadership, something we haven't seen from both Democrats and Republicans alike in a long time.

Taxes

Here comes the part in which almost everyone drags their feet, comes up with plans that really don't sound good (I'm looking at you, Paul Ryan) and where the most bitter and nasty political fights arise and occur. Ah taxes. We can always count on you for good old political rhetoric, political nonsense. But enough with the nostalgia. Let's get down to business. You may or may not note how aggressive I might be in this section, for better or for worse, it all depends on your opinion. Let us start with those estate taxes. I have three choices on the menu, and here they are (these come directly from the New York Times's Budget Puzzle)-

1. The Lincoln-Kyl Proposal- As we all know, there was no estate tax in 2010. This proposal by Senators Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, and Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, is the most moderate of the estate-tax options here. It would exempt the first $5 million from any taxable estate and index this level to inflation over time. Any estate value above $5 million would be taxed at a 35 percent rate. 
2. The Obama Proposal- President Obama's proposal is more agressive than Kyl-Lincoln, but would still cut the estate tax when compared to the Clinton years. The Obama plan would exempt the first $3.5 million from any taxable estate. Any estate above $3.5 million would be taxed at a 45 percent rate. These are the same provisions that applied in 2009, as part of the 2001 Bush tax cut. 
3. Return to Clinton-Era Levels- Under President Bill Clinton, the estate tax exempted $1 million from any taxable estate. This level would not grow with inflation over time, subjecting more estates to the tax. The rate would start at 18 percent and climb to 55 percent, as it did in the 1990s. The 55 percent rate would begin at $3 million. 

The first one (Lincoln-Kyl) is not aggressive enough, so that's other of the shuffle. President's Obama's proposal is aggressive, but not aggressive enough. So, the rates would return to Clinton-Era levels. Next up- investment taxes. We have two choices, and here they are-

1. The Obama Proposal- Capital gains and dividends are now untaxed for couples with incomes below $68,000. For everyone else, the tax rate is 15 percent. This option, proposed by President Obama, would raise the rate to 20 percent for households making roughly $250,000 a year and above.
2. Return to Clinton-Era Levels- This option would return rates to their level under President Bill Clinton: 10 percent on capital gains for low-income households and 20 percent for everyone else, while dividends would again be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. 

Again, I would choose a return to the Clinton Era Levels (Wow. I seem to be going all 90's.) I like I said in earlier posts, we need to make need to make some tough choices if we want to close the deficit and put this country on the long road to eliminating the debt. Next up on my plate- The Bush Era Tax Cuts. Here is where things get even more tougher. We have the two options, which are among the subjects of the most heated debates that takes place in Capital Hill. These are- 

1. Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year- This option would allow the expiration, on the next time this comes up for renewal, of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or more. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.
2. Allow expiration for income below $250,000 a year- This option would allow the expiration, on the next time this comes up for renewal, of the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or less. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income. 

This was not that easy of a choice as I expected. I forced to think about it for a long time, to weigh it out. If I allowed the expiration for incomes above $250,000, I would have $54 Billion to add on for 2015, and $115 Billion for 2030. If I allowed expiration for incomes below $250,000, I would get $172 Billion for 2015, and $252 Billion for 2030. I'll take number one. Next up, I would subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax, because when the payroll tax – which finances Social Security and Medicare – was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, with a ceiling at $106,800, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax. Next, I have again two choices for tax reform, and here they are- 

1. The Bowles-Simpson plan- This would reduce tax breaks for companies and individuals, while lowering tax rates. On the whole, this plan would raise revenue. It would cut all tax breaks other than the child and earned-income tax credits and those for mortgages, health and retirement benefits. The corporate tax would then be cut to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while individual tax rates would be cut for all brackets too.
2. Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher-  This option is the same as the previous one – except that tax rates would be cut less, raising more revenue to reduce the deficit.

Again, I'll go with the more aggressive and pick number two. Raises more cash to fight the deficit, and I don't want to see another headline that states that GE paid no taxes to the United States. I would also reduce mortgage deduction and others for high income, because the benefits of mortgage-intrest deduction flow mostly to those who make big mortgages, aka those of high income households. However, I have some limits. I will not impose a National Sales Tax, or a Carbon Tax, or a Bank Tax either. I know when enough is enough. 

So far, together with the two previous posts in this series, $564 Billion of the 2015 projected shortfall of $418 Billion has been accounted for, and $2,027 Billion of the 2030 projected shortfall of $1,345 Billon has also been accounted for. Thus, it leaves me with a suplus of $146 Billion for 2015, and a $682 Billion suplus for 2030, all which will go to reduce the deficit. Here is a breakdown-

• Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- $59 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $62 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Military- $61 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $107 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Health Care- $78 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $823 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Social Security- $19 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $301 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.             
• Taxes- $347 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $734 Billion of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off. 

For those who want see how I did it, and with the complete numbers, check it out here.

Next Up- Reflections. 

Cutting & Taxing-This is the fourth in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit. 

The Hypocrisy of Republicans

When Paul Ryan's budget was released a couple of weeks ago, it included a proposal to change Medicare, to change it into a block grant that would radically change it, providing less for Seniors who have worked their entire life. Democrats seized on the movement, rightly denouncing it as a plan that would hurt seniors yet keep the Bush-era tax cuts for all levels, including reducing the corporate tax rate (which is already among the lowest in developed nations, and with tax breaks and loopholes, makes it even lower. Just look at GE.) Now, the Republicans are asking Democrats to "stop engaging in 'Mediscare' tactics", that is, to stop saying that the Ryan Plan, the Path to Prosperity, would end Medicare as we all know it, which all know. Hmm, that's interesting. Let me flash back to a year ago, when the Health Care Reform Act was being debated, the Republicans came out with true demagogy, by saying that Democrats were rationing Health Care, were creating Death Panels, and bunch of other bull. As Paul Krugman states in his Op-Ed piece in the Times,

Now, you may recall that the people who signed that letter got their current jobs largely by engaging in “Mediscare” tactics of their own. And bear in mind that what Democrats are saying now is entirely true, while what Republicans were saying last year was completely false. Death panels! Well, it’s time, said the signatories, to “wipe the slate clean.” How very convenient — and how very pathetic.          

Those 42 Republican freshmen were elected last year in part by using demagogy are now running scared, as they fear that Democrats were will give a taste of their own medicine, but instead of using lies and myths, they are using the cold, hard truth. As I said last year in this blog post, it was ironic that these were the same people who opposed Medicare when it was first proposed, said last year that the Health Care Reform Act would destroy it, and now want to turn it into block grant program that would change it as we know it. Quoting lastly from Mr. Krugman, it is those Republican freshmen who

Last year, older voters, who split their vote almost evenly between the parties in 2008, swung overwhelmingly to the G.O.P., as Republicans posed successfully as defenders of Medicare. Now Democrats are pointing out that the G.O.P., far from defending Medicare, is actually trying to dismantle the program. So you can see why those Republican freshmen are nervous.

But the Democrats aren’t engaging in scare tactics, they’re simply telling the truth...and that’s something voters ought to know.

Checkmate, Republicans.

The truth is different than what you think.

When the Tea Party gained power the last couple of years, they claimed they were representing American interests, real American values, protecting American business from big government and from attacks abroad- in short, they claimed to be real Americans.

Looks like the truth is different that what most people think.

The Institute for Liberty, a Tea Party organization that claims to represent the small businesses of America, has for some strange reason defended the interests of a giant Indonesian company, Asia Pulp & Paper, who hired it to avoid paying tariffs the United States Government has imposed on it. Now that's interesting, for all this while I thought the Tea Party of America was supposed to represent the little man, the man who fears big government who is choking small businesses. Turns out they are lobbying for a big company, an Indonesian company nonetheless. Now, I'm not saying those people at the Institute for Liberty shouldn't be doing this- they have every right to be doing this, seeing as it is a political organization, but the point here is the fact that while claiming to be defending American values, it is lobbying for an Indonesian company who has a questionable record and in fact, most Tea Party groups are leery to Big Business. Yet in a way is the Institute for Liberty lobbying for Asia Pulp & Paper? Let's check it out. And of course we have to start with the great founding fathers and the good old Constitution. Andrew Langer, the leader of the group compared the tariff to those the British imposed on the colonies in the 1700's. However, we have to point out some holes in this argument- while the British at that time were imposing the tariff's in a attempt to teach the colonies a lesson in rebelling against the Mother Country, the U.S. government is imposing the tariff to protect American business, something which I thought was a big goal of the Tea Party Movement- protecting American interests. Sounds very hypocritical, don't you think? In an unusual turnaround they also started attacking American businesses. I also thought the Tea Party was Pro-Business. Doesn't sound very pro-American, Pro-Business to me, and since this a huge company, wouldn't the repeal of the tariff hurt American small businesses, which I thought this organization defended? Hmm, very puzzling, don't you think?

Let's go to the Asia Pulp & Paper, the company who seems to be allied with this organization- they have been cited for questionable logging polices, receiving subsides from China & Indonesia, and questionable labor practices as well. Do they want us to think that is just a coincidence that a Tea Party organization starts supporting the company last year when the government was on the verge of announcing the tariff? Of course they do. It's worthy to mention what Mr. Langer's reasons in saying that this is important to Americans- Textbook and Children's books prices could increase (Gasp! Oh, wait, they have rising for some time, and textbooks have always been expensive), and Americans will end up paying more for fried chicken because the paper the bowl is made of is from paper made in Asia- he might as well just say that this is taking away American's choice on how to die- obesity-since this will raise the price of fried chicken, a chief factor in the obesity epidemic. He claims that by raising tariffs we are taking away jobs from Southeast Asia that desperately need it -I didn't know it was our duty to provide jobs there. I thought our duty was to protect American business. Sounds very hypocritical doesn't it, if the Tea Party was founded to defend American interests and businesses. Leaves you thinking, doesn't it?               
      

The New York Times & The Daily News Has Got It Right- We Got A "Failed State". We got a "State of Shame".

An interesting quote from the Times, I noticed, that mentioned, "New Yorkers should be appalled at their failed state government, particularly their corrupt and clueless Legislature. Scandal and irresponsibility have been Albany’s creed for decades. This year, the gang added another outrage to the list: complete fiscal incompetence." That hits the spot. What is even more appalling is that most New Yorkers don't care. Because we don't care, this gives Albany the green light to act in a way that disgraces us all, and makes us the laughing stock of the nation. The New York Times again- "The only solace is this: The entire Legislature is up for re-election in 2010. And unless there is a sudden turnaround — and, so far, we see few signs of it — New Yorkers have no choice but to vote out all the lawmakers and start over."
We should. Vote them all out and force to take a class called "Ethics for Dummies, A Special Guide for The New York State Legislature. If they don't pass, send them to face the music.Vote them all out. Expel Monserrate. His fellow senators are expected to decide next month whether to oust him. If they have any shame left, they must. He is clearly not qualified to represent New Yorkers. Also expel Mr. Espada. He has done nothing except steal the taxpayers money, and put a halt to the state government. And he failed to report campaign contributions. And he does not live in his district. Thats enough to throw him out. Surprisingly not, they have not. Why? Cause they are all cheap scumbags. They are. 

Dave, Your Were Right On That Ethics Bill. It Was Very Weak.

On Tuesday, Gov. David Paterson vetoed an ethics bill which was NOT a solution to already low ethics standards of Albany, calling it weak.


He was right.


Calling it "Deeply Flawed," he was right in saying that the this bill does not go far enough toward fixing up Albany. Sure, it had some nice provisions. It would've required lawmakers to disclose a range of income they receive from outside businesses - and the names of their clients. However, it exempted lawmakers who are lawyers, such as Sampson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Sliver from those provisions. Sampson said, "Corruption costs money, inaction is unacceptable and change delayed is change denied." Interesting he said that, because he is a lawyer, which exempts him from those provisions. A very ironic quote. The quote from Paterson should be heeded by everybody- "We have an historic opportunity to reform Albany, and if we fail to seize it, history will not forgive us - and neither will the people who sent us here to lead." 


That quote should be heeded, but since lawmakers treat Albany as a joke, they will laugh it off anyway. Albany has such low Ethics standards it should be called "The Barnyard." Because that what Albany is anyway. A joke. A farmhouse full of law,akers who think they are slick, but they're not. A teacher told me this, "Lawmakers are famous for two things, talking the talking the talk and not walking the walk. And robbing public money."


Not surprisingly, this is very true in Albany.