konane's Blog

"Rock the Vote

Source Powerlineblog.com 

October 22, 2008 Posted by John at 7:16 PM

"We've heard a lot about young people, especially college students, who are devoted to Barack Obama. A lot of ink has been spilled speculating on how many young people will actually turn out to vote. But if this IBD/TIPP  http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309546869309178   poll is correct, Republicans had better hope the kids turn out in droves:

That's right: voters aged 18-24 are John McCain's best age demographic. That was true of Ronald Reagan, too; young people were his biggest fans. Obama's best cohort is the baby boomers--one more black mark, I guess, against our generation! Cultural stereotypes aside, though, it does seem odd that people in their peak earning years are most likely to support a tax-raiser.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021851.php

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/sky-news-video/Video/200810415126586?
 
"Footage Of Presidential Candidate As Prisoner Of War In Vietnam Released

10:09pm UK, Wednesday October 22, 2008

"Footage of John McCain being interviewed as a bedridden prisoner during the Vietnam War has been released by the French national archive.
Source Sky News
 
"McCain, who was filmed smoking, was emotional during the interview

The video portrays the Republican as a hero but the message may be tarnished as he is filmed smoking a cigarette.

In the footage an emotional and shirtless McCain passes a message to his wife saying he will get well and loves her.

He also describes being shot down over Hanoi in 1967, and parachuting into a lake.

At times, when speaking of his family, McCain's lower lip trembles and his voice breaks.

"I was on a flight over the city (Hanoi) ... and I was bombing and I was hit by a missile or anti-aircraft fire, I'm not sure which," he said, adding that his plane "when straight down."

After landing in the lake, McCain said he "was picked up and taken to the hospital, where I almost died."

In the interview, McCain said he was treated well by his Vietnamese captors. Asked about the food, he told his French interviewer, "It's not like Paris ... (but) I eat it."

French reporter Francois Chalais conducted the interview , which was first broadcast on French television program Panorama in January 1968.

The journalist's widow, Mei Chen Chalais, is seeking payment from several television broadcasters in France and the US for the unauthorised use of the footage.

Her lawyers have even written to the McCain campaign as its website features a few seconds of the footage, which Chalais said was done without her approval. "

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/US-Elections-2008/John-McCain-Footage-Of-Presidential-Candidate-As-Prisoner-Of-War-In-Vietnam-Released/Article/200810415126616

Quote from a previous article 

"You're (press) just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party"

 https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=25000

__________________

"Safety in Numbers? Poll-Driven Press Goes Out on a Limb

Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 20, 2008; Page C01

"The network maps are bathed in blue, the pundits contemplating a landslide, the conservative columnists preparing for the indignities of an Obama administration.

"With the numbers breaking Barack Obama's way, it's hardly surprising that poll-driven journalists are suggesting, insinuating or flat-out forecasting a Democratic victory. But could they affect the outcome? And what if they turn out to be wrong about John McCain being toast?

"One piece of press bias is they don't like losers," says CBS correspondent Jeff Greenfield. "When the whiff of defeat surrounds a campaign, the press picks up on it the way sharks smell blood in the water, and then it becomes a feedback loop."

NBC's political map has Obama at 264 electoral votes, just short of the required 270. Political director Chuck Todd told viewers that Obama is "one state away" and says he doesn't see how McCain can catch up.

"I think we have to be responsible," says Todd, adding that he won't hesitate to put Obama over 270 if his analysis supports it. "It'd be worse if somehow we were withholding it. That's crazy too. It looks like you're trying to create drama."

CNN projected Obama leading in states with 277 electoral votes last week, based on a new poll giving the freshman senator a 10-point lead in Virginia. "This is only a snapshot of where the individual states are," says political director Sam Feist. "We're not suggesting that Barack Obama has won this election." ABC's George Stephanopoulos says Obama would win more than 300 electoral votes if the election were held now.

But polls change, as many journalists were reminded when they wrongly predicted that Obama would beat Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. McCain accused the national media last week of having "written us off," as they did so embarrassingly last year.

"It's obvious the media have a preferred candidate in the race," says McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb. "It's obvious the media are eager to seal the fate of John McCain." At the same time, he says, "we know we have some ground to make up. We don't want our people to be demoralized looking at poll numbers that are rather erratic and that we don't think are reliable."

Obama, for his part, warned against <snip>iness last week when "the press starts getting carried away and we end up getting spanked."

"I don't think it's particularly helpful," says Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "And the people who are making these pronouncements are ignoring recent history that have shown very close results. This is a closely divided electorate, and we expect that nationally and in battleground states this race is going to go down to the wire."

News stories have hung their handicapping on partisans. McCain "failed to allay Republican concerns that the presidential race may be slipping beyond his grasp," says the Los Angeles Times. Republican leaders said "they were worried Mr. McCain was heading for defeat," says the New York Times. "Democratic strategists are now optimistic that the ongoing crisis could lead to a landslide Obama victory," says Politico. And Newsweek has the senator from Illinois on the cover yet again today, with the headline "How a President Obama would govern a center-right country." Not much doubt there.

Opinion writers are even bolder in flouting Yogi Berra's dictum that it ain't over till it's over. "The Democrats are on the verge of a strange victory," writes National Review Editor Rich Lowry. "If Obama is elected, they will arguably have won the most left-wing government in American history."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/19/AR2008101902099.html?nav=hcmodule

"One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.  "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Found this link via Powerlineblog.com.

Can you say bullseye??????????????????? 

______________________

Source Meridian  http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

"Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

"An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism.  You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere.  It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan?  It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups.  But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay?  They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.  One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.  The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.  (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me.  It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here?  Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?  Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal.  "Housing-gate," no doubt.  Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago.  So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.  So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts.  This financial crisis was completely preventable.  The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party.  The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie.  Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What?  It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents.  Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link.  (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth.  That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.  You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do.  Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences.  That's what honesty means .  That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one.  He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all?  Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women.  Who listens to NOW anymore?  We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late.  You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis.  You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city. "

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission. "

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

"Barney Frank: Plenty of rich people that we can tax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

Poor John, had my doubts some time back but this just confirms everyone's suspicions.         

"Murtha Calls Western Pa. 'Redneck'
Congressman Says Western Pa. Was 'Really Redneck'

POSTED: 4:24 pm EDT October 20, 2008
UPDATED: 6:28 pm EDT October 20, 2008

CHARLEROI, Pa. -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha is calling many of the people who put him in office "rednecks."

The news comes one week after Murtha claimed the area is racist, then apologized for that comment. "

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17764334/detail.html

"Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005

"WASHINGTON —  Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

"In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.

McCain, R-Ariz., was not a target of the DCI campaign. He signed Hagel's letter and three weeks later signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.

By the time McCain did so, however, DCI's effort had gone on for nine months and was on its way toward killing the bill.

In recent days, McCain has said Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were "one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire" of the global credit crisis. McCain has accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of taking advice from former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and failing to see that the companies were heading for a meltdown.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, or his lobbying firm has taken more than $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dating to 2000.

Obama has received $120,349 in political donations from employees of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; McCain $21,550.

The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel's bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants who spoke out against the measure.

Inside Freddie Mac headquarters in 2005, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as "the stealth lobbying campaign," according to three people familiar with the drive.

They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they fear retaliation if their names were disclosed.

Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI's drive, according to the three people.

"Hollis's goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort," one of the three people told the AP.

Before 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democratic strongholds. After 2004, Republicans ran their political operations. McLoughlin, who joined Freddie Mac in 2004 as chief of staff, has given $32,250 to Republican candidates over the years, including $2,800 to McCain, and has given none to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

On Friday night, Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said Hagel's legislation "was the last best chance to bring greater oversight and tighter regulation to Freddie and Fannie, and they used every means they could to defeat Sen. Hagel's legislation every step of the way."

"It is outrageous that a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise would lobby against a member of Congress's bill that would strengthen the regulation and oversight of that institution," Buttry said in a statement. "America has paid an extremely high price for the reckless, and possibly criminal, actions of the leadership at Freddie and Fannie."

Nine of the 17 targeted Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter: Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen of Virginia. Aside from the nine, 20 other Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter.

McConnell's office said members of leadership do not sign letters to the leader. McConnell was majority whip at the time.

Eight of the targeted senators did sign it: Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Larry Craig of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, George Voinovich of Ohio and David Vitter of Louisiana. Santorum, Crapo and Bunning were on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and had voted in favor of sending the bill to the full Senate.

On Thursday, Freddie Mac acknowledged that the company "did retain DCI to provide public affairs support at the state and local level." On Friday, DCI issued a four-sentence statement saying it complied with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations in representing Freddie Mac. Neither Freddie Mac nor DCI would say how much Goodyear's consulting firm was paid.

Freddie Mac paid DCI $10,000 a month for each of the targeted states, so the more states, the more money for DCI, according to the three people familiar with the program. In addition, Freddie Mac paid DCI a group retainer of $40,000 a month plus $20,000 a month for each regional manager handling the project, the three people said.

Last month, the concerns of the 26 Republican senators who signed Hagel's bill became a reality when the government seized control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae amid their near financial collapse. Federal prosecutors are investigating accounting, disclosure and corporate governance issues at both companies, which own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages, roughly equivalent to half of the national debt.

Freddie Mac was so pleased with DCI's work that it retained the firm for other jobs, finally cutting DCI loose last month after the government takeover, according to the three people familiar with the situation.

Freddie Mac's problems began when Hagel's legislation won approval from the Senate committee.

Democrats did not like the harshest provision, which would have given a new regulator a mandate to shrink Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by forcing them to sell off part of their portfolios. That approach, the Democrats feared, would cut into the ability of low- and moderate-income families to buy houses.

The political backdrop to the debate "was like bizarre-o-world," said the second of three people familiar with the program. "The Republicans were pro-regulation and the Democrats were against it; it was upside down."

Sen. Richard Shelby, the committee chairman at the time, underscored that in a statement Wednesday, saying that with Democrats already on their side, it was not surprising that Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae went after Republicans. "Unfortunately," said Shelby, R-Ala., "efforts then to derail reform were successful."

In a sign of bad things to come, Freddie Mac was already having serious problems in 2005. Auditors had exposed massive accounting issues, so improved regulation was one obvious remedy.

Once Freddie Mac's in-house lobbyists failed to keep Hagel's bill bottled up in the committee, McLoughlin responded by secretly hiring DCI.

DCI never filed lobbying reports with Congress about what it was doing because the firm was relying on a long-recognized gap in the disclosure law.

Federal lobbying law only requires reporting and registration when there are contacts with a legislator or staff.

"To have it stealthy, not to let people know who is behind this, in my opinion is unethical," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University who long has taught courses about lobbying.

Goodyear is a longtime political consultant from Arizona who resigned from the Republican convention job this year after Newsweek magazine revealed he had lobbied for the repressive military junta of Myanmar.

McLoughlin, Freddie Mac's senior vice president for external relations, was assistant treasury secretary from 1989 through 1992 in the administration of President Bush's father. McLoughlin served as chief of staff to Sen. Nicholas Brady, R-N.J., in 1982 and to Rep. Millicent Fenwick, R-N.J., from 1975-79.

Seven of the 17 targeted Republican senators were in the midst of re-election campaigns in 2006, and according to one of the three people familiar with the program, Freddie Mac and DCI hoped those facing tough races would tell their Republican colleagues back in Washington that "we've got enough trouble; you're making it worse with Hagel's bill."

Five of the seven DCI targets who ran for re-election in 2006 lost, and Senate control switched to the Democrats.

A Freddie Mac e-mail on May 4, 2006 — the day before Hagel's letter — details the behind-the-scenes effort that Freddie Mac and DCI generated to hold down the number of Republicans signing Hagel's letter urging a full Senate vote. It said:

"What I'm asking is that DCI get a few of their key well-connected constituents from each state to call in to the DC office of their Republican senators and speak to the (legislative director) or (chief of staff) and urge them not to sign the letter. The following could be used as a short script."

The proposed script read: "We can all agree that Fannie's and Freddie's regulator should be strengthened but unfortunately, S.190 goes too far and could potentially have damaging effects on Georgia's — example — home buyers."

According to the third of the three people familiar with the program, "DCI was asked to help keep senators from signing; it was a big part of their effort that year and it was viewed as a success since many DCI targets did not sign the letter."

DCI's progress after the first four months of the campaign was spelled out in a 19-page document dated Dec. 12, 2005, and titled, "Freddie Mac Field Program State by State Summary Report."

A snippet of a senator-by-senator breakdown of the efforts says this about Maine's Snowe:

"Philip Harriman, former state senator, co-chair of Snowe's 2006 campaign, personal Snowe friend, major GOP donor and investment adviser, has written the senator a personal letter on this issue. Dick Morin, vice president Maine Association of Mortgage Brokers, has been in direct contact with Sen. Snowe's committee staff, has sent a letter to Snowe, and is pursuing a dozen(s) of letters from his members."

On Wednesday, Snowe's office issued a statement saying that she "literally gets hundreds of 'Dear Colleague' letters seeking support for their positions that she does not sign. Had this legislation come up for a vote in 2006, she certainly would have considered it on its merits — as she does every vote. Just last July, she voted for the housing bill that established a new, stronger regulator."

Rosario Marin, a staunch McCain supporter who spoke at the GOP convention in September, was among the people DCI used in carrying out the campaign.

Marin, the U.S. treasurer during the first term of the Bush administration, went to Missouri and to Montana, Burns' state, where she spoke out against Hagel's bill.

At the time, Burns, who ended up losing his re-election bid, was caught up in a Washington influence peddling scandal centering on disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Marin's visit triggered a local newspaper story in which the reporter contacted Burns' staff for comment. Burns' office told the newspaper the senator was not supportive of the latest version of Hagel's bill.

On Wednesday, Marin, now state consumer services secretary in California, issued a statement confirming that her trips to Missouri and Montana were in her capacity as a DCI consultant.

The December 2005 summary listing 17 Republican targets outlines the inroads DCI was making.

"On day one" of the effort, Sen. George Allen of Virginia had not addressed Hagel's bill and his legislative aide for housing was not assigned to it, the report said.

"Today," the report added, "the senator is aware of the issue and ... at the moment he is undecided." Allen's deputy chief of staff "has said that the senator will take into consideration before he decides that Freddie Mac is located in Virginia and is one of the largest Virginia employers."

"Grasstops/opinion leaders James Todd, president, the Peterson Companies wrote to both senators," the report added. "Milt Peterson, the founder and CEO of the company is one of Allen's major donors."

In the end, Allen, who lost his bid for re-election in 2006, did not sign Hagel's letter. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html

Oct 16, 2008

"Washington, Oct 16 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today released an analysis showing that the left-wing group ACORN, currently under investigation by the FBI for a “coordinated national scam” of voter registration fraud according to the Associated Press, has received at least $31 million in federal funding from various federal agencies since 1998. This total does not count the untold millions more that ACORN has received indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants. Boehner, who last week called for an end to federal funding of ACORN following widespread reports of voter fraud by the group, released the following statement:

“Senator Obama recently said that he doesn’t need ACORN. Well, American taxpayers don’t need ACORN either. They don’t need ACORN’s voter registration fraud, and they no longer need to support ACORN with federal funds.

“ACORN’s free ride on the backs of taxpayers must end immediately. An initial review of federal records shows ACORN affiliates have received at least $31 million in direct federal funding from American taxpayers over the past 10 years, and millions more indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants. House Republicans worked together to stop the Majority from using taxpayer dollars to fill a slush fund created just for ACORN, but now we must go further to turn off the spigot of federal grants on which ACORN depends.

“Recent revelations of voter registration fraud on a massive scale in critical states are unacceptable. ACORN’s dishonest approach to voter registration, including fraudulently registering the cartoon character Mickey Mouse, shows a brazen disrespect for the law and our system of free and fair elections. In conjunction with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and its political allies in the Democratic Party, ACORN also played a key role in creating the financial crisis that ultimately put our entire economy in peril. It’s time for us to stop forcing American taxpayers to fund the ACORN machine.”

A review of the Federal Register shows that ACORN affiliates in 11 states received more than $31 million in federal funds from 1998 to 2008.

One of the grants to an ACORN affiliate, a Jan. 17, 2007 award to ACORN Associates Inc. of Albuquerque, NM, is notable because it appears to facilitate and encourage the use of risky subprime loans, now viewed by many as a contributing factor in the recent freezing up of international credit markets. The title for the grant? “Education and Outreach Initiative/Subprime Lending Component.”

Here is a breakdown of federal funds received by ACORN:

RECIPIENT CITY ST AMOUNT DATE
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,016,473.86 03/26/08
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,821,596.00 03/06/08
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION N/A N/A $7,850,939.00 02/24/08
ACORN INSTITUTE INC. WASHINGTON DC $362,378.00 01/28/08
ACORN INSTITUTE DALLAS TX $179,916.00 12/31/07
ACORN INSTITUTE DALLAS TX $124,915.00 12/31/07
ACORN INSTITUTE DALLAS TX $124,693.00 12/31/07
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION ST. PAUL MN $100,000.00 11/20/07
NEW MEXICO ACORN FAIR HOUSING ALBUQUERQUE NM $99,757.00 11/20/07
NEW MEXICO ACORN FAIR HOUSING ALBUQUERQUE NM $99,724.00 01/17/07
ACORN ASSOCIATES INC. ALBUQUERQUE NM $49,997.00 01/17/07
ACORN COMMUNITY LAND ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS LA $100,000.00 01/17/07
ACORN FAIR HOUSING WASHINGTON DC $80,000.00 09/08/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION ST. PAUL MN $80,000.00 09/08/06
ACORN INSTITUTE INC. NEW ORLEANS LA $80,000.00 09/08/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION OF TEXAS HOUSTON TX $49,865.00 09/08/06
ACORN COMMUNITY LAND ASSOCIATION ALBUQUERQUE NM $99,775.00 09/08/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION OF ARIZONA PHOENIX AZ $99,840.00 09/08/06
ACORN COMMUNITY LAND ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA
BALTIMORE MD $200,000.00 09/08/06
ACORN FAIR HOUSING WASHINGTON DC $79,988.00 09/08/06
ACORN INSTITUTE INC. NEW ORLEANS LA $79,896.80 09/08/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION ST. PAUL MN $80,000.00 09/08/06
ACORN COMMUNITY LAND ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS LA $80,000.00 09/08/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION OF ARIZONA PHOENIX AZ $95,000.00 09/08/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION ST. PAUL MN $100,000.00 09/06/06
ACORN FAIR HOUSING, A PROJECT OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON DC $100,000.00 09/06/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION ST. PAUL MN $100,000.00 09/06/06
ACORN COMMUNITY LAND ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS LA $100,000.00 09/06/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION N/A IL $351,000.00 08/29/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION N/A IL $527,000.00 08/29/06
ACORN ASSOCIATES NEW ORLEANS LA $1,999,920.00 06/14/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,197,255.00 03/21/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $78,354.00 03/21/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATIONPHILADELPHIA PA $323,439.00 03/21/06
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATIONPHILADELPHIA PA $275,000.00 03/21/06
ACORN HOUSING ST. PAUL MN $100,000.00 12/13/05
ACORN INSTITUTE DALLAS TX $96,952.58 12/13/05
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,812,471.00 05/02/05
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $325,000.00 05/02/05
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $275,000.00 05/02/05
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $2,024,511.00 02/23/04
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $380,282.00 02/23/04
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $ 250,962.00 02/23/04
ACORN ASSOCIATES NEW ORLEANS LA $999,974.00 11/25/03
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,167,044.00 01/13/03
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,032,192.00 01/16/02
ACORN FAIR HOUSING WASHINGTON DC $300,000.00 11/09/01
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION CHICAGO IL $300,000.00 04/11/01
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $597,474.34 04/11/01
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,000,000.00 06/23/99
ACORN TENANT UNION TRAINING AND ORGANIZING PROJECT
WASHINGTON DC $99,900.00 04/13/99
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION CHICAGO IL $751,500.00 02/12/99
ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION PHILADELPHIA PA $1,000,000.00 08/27/98
ACORN TENANT UNION TRANING PROJECT, INC.
BROOKLYN NY $250,000.00 04/08/98
ARKANSAS ACORN FAIR HOUSING LITTLE ROCK AR $100,000.00 02/19/98
TOTAL $31,049,984.58

http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/183

A friend sent me these video links. 

______________

http://www.neverfindout.org/

Hope live links below answer some of your questions.  Rampant spending has  proven the government unwilling to rein itself in.  Citizens controlling purse strings is the only way to force government to be responsible to all of us again.

_____________

Click on the questions below to view the answers.

1. What is taxed?
2. Exactly what taxes are abolished?
3. How does the rebate work?
4. Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn't that be fair and simple?
5. Is the 23% FairTax higher or lower when compared to the income taxes people pay today?
6. Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?
7. How is the Social Security system affected?
8. How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?
9. Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?
10. How is the tax collected?
11. Why is the FairTax better than our current system?
12. Is the FairTax fair?
13. How does the FairTax protect low-income families and individuals and retirees on fixed incomes?
14. Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?
15. What about senior citizens and retired people?
16. Are seniors taxed twice on savings, once when they saved it, and now again when the spend it?
17. How does the FairTax affect wages and prices?
18. Why not just exempt necessities from the FairTax instead of providing for a rebate?
19. Should the government tax services?
20. How does the FairTax affect income tax preparers, accountants, and many government employees?
21. What about the home mortgage deduction?
22. What will happen to charitable giving?
23. Will corporations get a windfall with the abolition of the corporate tax?
24. Does the FairTax burden the retail industry?
25. How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax?
26. How will the plan affect economic growth?
27. What economic changes come at the retail level with the FairTax?
28. What happens to interest rates?
29. What happens to the stock market, mutual funds, and retirement funds?
30. What happens to tax-free bonds?
31. How does this affect U.S. competitiveness in foreign trade?
32. What about border issues?
33. Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?
34. Can the FairTax really be passed into law?
35. What other significant economies use such a tax plan?
36. What about the flat tax? Would it be better and easier to pass?
37. Can Congress just simply raise the rate once the FairTax is passed into law?
38. Could we end up with both the FairTax and an income tax?
39. Is the FairTax just another conservative tax scheme? Or just another liberal tax scheme?
40. What assumptions have been made about government spending?
41. How does the FairTax affect government spending?
42. Why is it necessary to have a constitutional amendment?
43. How does the income tax affect our economy?
44. How will this plan affect compliance costs?
45. What about value-added taxes (VATs), like they have in Europe and Canada? Are they not consumption taxes?
46. What will we experience in the transition from the income tax to the FairTax?
47. I know the FairTax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income taxes. What will the rate of the sales tax be at the retail counter?
48. Since business purchases are not taxable, how does the FairTax keep individuals from pretending to have a business so they can buy things tax free?
49. Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?
50. Is there any provision in the FairTax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax?
    
    http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq

"ABOUT THE FAIRTAX

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS

We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore!

The FairTax Five    (live links)

The gloves are off as critics try to pick apart the FairTax. Trouble is, it's just a replay of the same five FairTax myths:

• "The 23% rate is misleading. It's actually 30%"
  Well, actually...
• "It's not enforceable and evasion will be rampant"
  Well, actually...
• "It will not be revenue neutral at 23%"
  Well, actually...
• "The FairTax is not politically viable"
  Well, actually...
• "The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"
  Well, actually...
  
  http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

"The FairTax replaces all federal taxes paid by you and by businesses. No income tax. No capital gains taxes. No death tax. No Social Security tax. No alternative minimum tax. All gone. The elimination of these taxes will remove these tax components from the price of everything you buy." Surely, ......you will understand that all of the taxes paid by all of the people who are responsible for bringing a loaf of bread, a movie theatre ticket or a gallon of gasoline to the marketplace are passed down the line and paid by the final consumer of that item. Think about this ... where ELSE would the money to pay those taxes come from? There is no other way to generate the income necessary to pay these taxes OTHER than to include them in the final price of everything sold in our economy. So, how much is this tax component? About 22%. The taxes included in some consumer items are higher, lower in others, but the average is about 22%. When this 22% tax component comes OUT of the price of everything you buy, it is REPLACED by the 23% FairTax. So, THE TRUTH is that the FairTax does not "add 23% to the cost of everything you buy." It replaces the 22% average tax component included in the cost of everything you buy with a 23% sales tax.

There's so much more to this, and you can get the details from Americans for Fair Taxation, Congressman John Linder's website, or by heading to your bookstore and buying a copy of The FairTax book. Promise ... those of you who were initially frightened by this DSCC lying attack on the FairTax will come away supporters if you educate yourselves." 

http://boortz.com/nuze/200810/10162008.html#fairtax

______ 

"Just Trust the Government?

At the heart of the financial meltdown now bedeviling Americans is a simple and profoundly ignored fact that does not require an advanced degree in economics to understand: Our government spends more than it takes in—a lot more.

Sure, regulators could have done a better job but, in truth, politicians at every level have frustrated attempts to blow the whistle on bad loans, bad reporting and bad ethics. Why? Because politicians have been buying our votes with our money—and our future earnings—for a long time. And they don't want any interference from those they are "helping."

It's not just the naked bribes represented by "earmarks" for hometown voters; it is new entitlement programs like the prescription drug benefit, new rules governing the behavior of favored banks and investment houses and a headlong rush to buy the votes of the poor by guaranteeing home ownership, irrespective of one's financial ability to repay a loan. Lest we forget, let's also add up all the special tax breaks for favored contributors that have bloated income tax code rules to 67,500 pages. It's a bi-partisan betrayal of our future cloaked as concern for the common good.

Although our nation was founded on the principle that the citizen was sovereign, government spending increases and more and more taxes taken from our earnings, savings and investments have effectively transformed the American citizen into a serf working another's land for the privilege of taking a fraction of the fruits of his or her own labor.

Just Trust Us

"Trust us," we are told. "We have the best interests of the nation at heart." Citizens are now left with no rational choice to protect savings, college plans, and investments but to accept the new aristocracies' trillion dollar picking of our pockets to prop up institutions that must function. It is not the first time in recent years that we have accepted the grasping hand of the federal government in our wallets to avert a disaster not of our making.

In 1983 a "Blue Ribbon" panel of similar leaders including Alan Greenspan, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others "saved" Social Security from another big collapse by dramatically raising taxes on earnings of up to $97,500 annually. The promise, then, was that Baby Boomers would actually "pre-fund" their own retirement with astoundingly increased taxes, decades ahead of time. It was also promised as relief to the coming generations so they would be free of crippling taxes. Sounded good.

Lo and behold, the trillions of dollars taken in since then—far exceeding promised payments to senior citizens—have since been spent on everything else. Turns out, that it was nothing more than a new tax levied on those with earnings below $97,500 a year so executive and legislative branch office holders could have more of our money to spend extravagantly on "us" so they could win new terms in office. The FICA payroll tax has become a major factor in keeping the poor that way, retarding new business growth and keeping middle-class earners from moving up. Worst, it also turns out that our children and grandchildren will, in fact, still be burdened an ever-growing and mind-numbing national debt AND unbelievably high FICA taxes to support their parents.

In yet another example of playing fast and loose with politics and our money, 1986 saw Congress reject the tax policies of the Reagan administration and as consequence, the Savings and Loan industry collapsed. Turns out the definition of the tax value of real estate holdings had been changed overnight by the House Ways and Means Committee and banks no longer met liquidity rules. That politically inspired cat fight cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. And worse, we didn't learn.

It is past time--way past time--for hometown America to save America from our well-intentioned but criminally incompetent, at best, and cynically corrupted , at worst, national leadership. Do we have a moment to lose? Do we really need any more examples of how the new aristocracy can—and will—destroy the pursuit of happiness?

The reform that can save the nation and restore our identity as citizens who have empowered and limited government (instead of the other way around) is called the FairTax.

Because the FairTax allows every American to take home everything that is earned without any federal withholding, millions of distressed homeowners could actually afford home mortgage payments. The elimination of FICA taxes eliminates the highly regressive Social Security and Medicate tax but the FairTax provides a far broader stream of revenue into these faltering programs. Because the FairTax eliminates all exemptions, gimmicks and loopholes, Congress would be removed from the ability to buy votes with tax giveaways and billionaires pay taxes when they spend money. Because the FairTax makes nearly all federal government taxes entirely transparent, the sovereign citizen can know the score and put the brakes on extravagant new spending. Because the FairTax eliminates the price advantage now enjoyed by overseas producers, American jobs won't be leaving our shores. In fact, because the FairTax makes the USA the most favorable tax environment in the world, we can expect trillions of dollars of investment rushing into the US economy. With the FairTax, our money is ours first and only secondly devoted to government. Savings growth, investments and business decisions are guided by opportunity and real progress instead of tax avoidance tactics.

We've lost more than $2 trillion of our retirement savings in a week's time and our kid's future at college is in serious jeopardy. This didn't happen by accident but at the hands of the very same people who have given the FairTax a cold shoulder. Those candidates and incumbents of either party who would spend our future earnings to stay in office and who reject the FairTax for similarly self-interested reasons now need a strong reminder from voters about whose offices they occupy. Please pay attention to our voting guide and send that message. ....."

...."The plain fact is, we either now save ourselves from our new aristocracy or suffer the consequences as modern day serfs in a nation never contemplated by our Founding Fathers. "

http://townhall.com/columnists/KenHoagland/2008/10/15/just_trust_the_government?page=full&comments=true

"Knoxville's Joe the Plumber doubts Obama, too

Source knoxnews.com

"Joe the Plumber, of Knoxville, that is, says he's less concerned about whether he gets a tax break if his customers still can't afford to hire him.

Still, Joe Shanks, a licensed master plumber and owner of Joe's Plumbing Service in the Cedar Bluff area, has followed the presidential campaigns the same as his much-quoted counterpart in Toledo, Ohio,................."