I decided to use this website as a platform for some writing that I did for the Fairfield University paper, The Mirror. This is the first article I've written for them, and there is a possibility I will write more in the future.

Chris Dodd to Run for President

Senator Chris Dodd, the senior Democratic Senator from Connecticut, announced he will join the widening field of candidates for the presidential nomination in 2008. Mr. Dodd has had over 30 years experience in congress, and has been a strong voice in the Democratic Party in the Senate, where he now serves as chairman of the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Senator Dodd showed his political strength last November, when his support of longtime ally Joe Lieberman in the Senate race contributed to his victory over Ned Lamont.

So far, Dodd’s entrance into the race though has failed to make a significant impact on the race for the Democratic nomination for president. The field is currently dominated by political heavyweights Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, who are all seen as more formidable opponents. All three of these candidates are all members of the Senate, but Dodd’s experience in the Senate is ten years greater than the combined time in office of the top three candidates. Experience has already become a criticism of Barack Obama, who has only served two years in the Senate. If Dodd can exploit this, he can vault himself into the top tier of presidential candidates.

There certainly are many factors that should make us consider Chris Dodd’s candidacy as a serious contender in the race. Influential Senator Ted Kennedy has recently announced he will back Dodd in the race. Most importantly, it appears that this run will be the last campaign that the senator will run in. Dodd recently told the FEC that he has no intention of running for reelection to the Senate in 2010, when his term expires. This frees him to use all of his resources, including campaign cash of nearly $2 million, to run a serious race.

It has become clear that the 2008 race will still heavily focus on Iraq, with candidates on both sides of the aisle seeking to appeal to the majority of Americans that now want to see a conclusion to the bungled war. John Edwards recently held a high profile Martin Luther King Day speech in Harlem to promote his message on the war. “If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel,” said Edwards. “Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now.” Senators Obama and Clinton have also positioned themselves against the war in their recent speeches and interviews.

It is Senator Dodd though who perhaps has taken the most direct action among these candidates to stop the troop surge that President Bush and Senator John McCain have been the loudest spokesmen for. Whereas some in the Senate recently called for a non-binding resolution to renounce the escalation, Senator Dodd has gone one step further. He introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for an increase in troop levels in Iraq. "Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and the time for blank checks is over," Dodd said. "Congress needs to act urgently on this matter before we send additional troops into harm's way." This would bring congress to vote on a politically unpopular war, which would make difficult positions for lawmakers, especially those who face tough elections in 2008. The bill failed to gain a majority vote of the armed services committee, garnering a 6-15 vote, with half of the Democrats approving, and every Republican voting against it. Later, Dodd voted in support of a non-binding resolution against the escalation, which passed committee with a 12-9 vote.

The chances of Senator Dodd receiving the Democratic nomination for the President appear distant at the moment, but clearly it is possible that the dynamic can change as the primary process plays out. The Senator certainly has the clout, experience, and strong voice on the war in Iraq to his credit, but strong candidates stand in his way right now.

As you may note, I am using this site currently to help with search result placement of John McCain on search engines. I want to highlight a specific article that tells about his strong support of Bush's war strategy for this reason: many people get their political news and information online. Search results are ordered by how people link to the specific words in their writings. Using this site multiplies my influence, which I benevelently use to let people who search for John McCain to see that he backs Bush's war policy, which is greatly flawed. If people are wrong, I don't mind so much. But when the bad policies of George Bush and John McCain put good Americans (or any other people for that matter) in jeopardy, using American money no less, then it is the least I can do. So enjoy the various links to John McCain, and know that they are doing whats best for the world. But not John McCain.

This article alone helped a whole lot to out John McCain.

Note to possible readers

While I probebly won't be writing much on the blog in the future, and certainly not on a regular basis, as other obligations are consuming my time (President of college Democrats, classes, work, etc), I am keeping up the site to preserve some of the writing from the past, and hold the possibility that future writing can occur. Feel free to browse the archives and comment as normal, but know that updates will be rare and infrequent.

Cape Cod wind farm

There is currently a lot of debate about putting a wind farm up in Cape Cod. And the top reason for opposing it is the views it will cause that would drive away tourists. While it’s hard for me to step outside my environmental views on this one, I still find it hard to believe tourists wouldn’t come because of this. I actually think it would make some kind of a landmark. The windmills are 6 miles offshore, and supposedly will look “like a spec.” I’ve got to think that it comes down to providing 400,000 homes with renewable energy, and saving a whole load of carbon emissions. I think it’s a great project, and hope that Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney will allow this one to go through.

All about Oil

The President today put out a half-hearted speech about reducing the prices of gasoline for consumers. One part that resonated with me was reducing the massive tax breaks that we pay oil companies – but he only suggested we get rid of $2 billion in breaks for offshore drilling. That’s a start I suppose, but his energy bill from last year gave away over $12 billion to oil/gas/coal companies, so we’re far from progress.

The flip side of this was a reduction in environmental standards for gasoline production to last throughout the summer. The President has used catastrophes to promote his agenda before, as catalogued by Susan G at Daily Kos.

If the President truly wanted to reduce energy costs across the board, not just for gasoline, he could have done many things. The Democrats plan for energy independence by 2020 would be a huge way. Another idea would be increasing CAFÉ standards dramatically, which would require companies to innovate/use current technologies. Adding hybrid cars, diesel engines, or going toward smaller cars are all ways to do this without the government getting directly involved. What I like most about this is that it would encourage companies to drop gasoline-only versions of cars that have a hybrid counterpart (for example, no longer sell the Honda civic, but only the Honda civic hybrid). The CAFÉ standards function by requiring the average fuel economy of the entire fleet of cars to reach a certain goal, instead of mandating standards for each car.

Profit Tax on Oil Companies revisited

Republican Arlen Specter has helped renew the call for a profit windfall tax on oil companies. The windfall tax was an idea promoted by Hillary Clinton after Hurricane Katrina, which would tax excessive profits in the industry. The idea behind the tax is the prevent price gouging, where companies seize on political events to inflate the price of oil and gasoline.

What was surprising about Specter’s call for the tax is that, as a Republican, he has come out against corporate control. “They get together, reduce the supply of oil, and that drives up prices.” He has called for stricter anti-trust laws preventing huge oil mergers, such as the Exxon-mobile merger a few years ago. Anyone who studies basic economics knows that monopoly and oligopoly businesses are bad for consumers, and good for profits. And anyone who read my post, or other similar news reports, knows that profits don’t mean employment. It’s good to see a Republican speaking out for the common good, even if this is political grandstanding. It shows that cooperation is possible in solving some common problems for all Americans.

The Bush Administration used Earth Day to give lip service to environmental concerns. There was a conference to discuss ways that the private sector can develop new technologies that reduce emissions. They also laid out a whopping $58 million to help fund the project. Note: The proposed military budget for 2007 was $540 billion, before budget talks derailed. It will probably end up higher.

Here are some ideas of technology that can be invented to help reduce emissions. A “solar panel,” which creates energy from the sun. A wind turbine which would use principles of lift to generate power. “Hybrid cars,” which run on a battery engine as well as gasoline. These ideas could dramatically reduce emissions. But wait! They exists – the market has failed to use them. The market is not the way to do this until oil is $150 a barrel (twice today’s historic high of $75), then these technologies will be economically competitive. Government support is needed to implement technology that we already have. Then we will have progress. And thats why we need Democrats in office.

The Democrat's agenda restated

The Democrats have been, over the last year, increasingly efficient at expressing the party’s agenda. Howard Dean, speaking in New Orleans, laid out the main points of the plan.

Dean said that Democrats will fight for a six-point plan that includes raising the minimum wage, tax ``fairness'' for the middle class, ``a complete ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists,'' the inspection of all cargo coming into U.S. ports, fixing the Medicare drug plan and ``transition'' in Iraq.

This adds to what Rahm Emanuel, leading of congressional Democrats through the DCCC, laid out on Meet the Press:

(1) making college education affordable for every American; (2) holding a summit to fix the budget; (3) achieving energy independence in part by switching to a hybrid economy; (4) creating an institute on science and technology to spur American innovation; and (5) universal health care.

These ideas of course don’t show a policy shift, but merely list some Democratic ideals to make it easy for media outlets to report. Critics may cite the lack of new ideas, but ironically these are probably the same critics that said “the Democrats have to plan.” (embarrassingly for the Republicans, their site has a poll asking when the Democrats will reveal their agenda).

I’m more happy with Emanuel’s list, simply for the inclusion of affordable college education and universal healthcare, but I like Dean’s new list as well. Complete separation of lobbyist perks, as well as raising the minimum wage are very progressive values. These bold objectives are exactly what the Democrats need to trumpet up, and of course deliver on.

Democrats in 2008

John Kerry is considering running again in 2008. I like the guy, voted for the guy, and would vote for him again. But doesn’t it seem like common sense in politics that if you lose the first time around, you step aside and allow a new politician to try? The same goes for Al Gore, who has denied wanting to run again, but the suspicions are there. Only if there was a lack of new Democratic faces would I suggest they try again.

Let me also use this space to support Mark Warner for the Democratic nomination (thats him up there). I don’t think he officially announced that he is running, but he is. And he’s helping Democrats around the country to get elected. He was the governor of Virginia from 2001-2005, and had huge approval ratings (75%-80%) as a Democrat in a red state. He steps above partisan politics and puts forward practical solutions. When Democrats look at Bush, they don’t say, “I don’t like how he does Thing A, but at least he does Thing B.” It is hard to find something we like about George Bush. With Mark Warner, it could be different. Republicans may not like everything that he does, but most respect him, support him, and trust him. We need someone that can bring us together and work to solve our current and future problems. So my early support goes to Mark Warner. Do the research – its very early, but keep the name in the back of your mind. This is someone you’ll be hearing more of in the next year.

The (next) War

The conflict in Iran has garnered added attention this week and last, as Iran announced it had joined the nuclear club and could enrich uranium (note: they don’t and can’t have a bomb for at least 5 years). A rumor had come out that the US had considered using tactical nukes on Iran, and I didn’t even report it. It seemed so far fetched. At a later press conference, the President was asked point-blank if they were considering a tactical nuclear strike on Iran.

"All options are on the table," he said.

What!? Nuclear weapons?! That’s ridiculous! That’s the worst bit of diplomacy I could have dreamed of. This would make us out to be the bad guy in the situation, and we’re dealing with one of the craziest leaders in the modern world. Cooler heads certainly must prevail.

Harry Reid has stepped up and assured us that there is no military option for Iran; it must be worked out diplomatically. He blames the upsurge in Anti-American feelings on Bush’s horrible handling of the war in Iraq. I’m glad he came forward and said this, considering previously the talking point from Democrats was nothing or “All options are on the table.” We need Democrats to be the rational ones here. Just because they have the right position on the Iraq war doesn’t make them the best on the conflict with Iran. I hope to see more Democrats get behind Reid on this one.

My Senate Preditions for 2006

I have looked at the first quarter Senate campaign finances, and am happy with what I see. This is the list of fundraising that Democrats and Republicans have done for the Senate race this fall, including (and most importantly) their current cash on hand. Here’s what I found:

There are 10 races where the Democrat is set, with a combined $49,967,872 (Hillary has 19,703,421 of this, and will be saving for the Presidential unfortunately). On the other hand, 6 Republicans are set, with $15,639,020 cash on hand (Note: Lugar doesn’t have his numbers listed). There are 11 Races where money is needed for Democrats to help them win. Republicans are sitting on a large cash advantage here. Democrats could spread some money here and help out a lot.

All in all, I think that the only seat changes are as follows:

Pennsylvania: Santorum (R) loses to Bob Casey (D)

Montana: Burns (R) loses to John Morrison (D)

Rhode Island: Chaffee (R) loses to Whitehouse (D)

Ohio: Mike DeWine (R) loses to Sherrod Brown (D)

Missouri: Jim Talent (R) loses to Clare McCaskill (D)

These 5 are backed up by Rasmussen Reports, which tends to lean conservative.

I’m not as sure about John Ensign of Nevada losing to Carter, who is way behind with money. I also think the Dems can hold their positions. Not many seem to threatened, except in New Jersey and perhaps Minnesota. I think Dems will pick up 4-5 seats, because they might not overturn Nevada, and might lose on of the two just mentioned. I’d love to see 5 seats, tying us. This would mean Chaffee, a true moderate Republican, would be gone, so we wouldn’t really have too many moderate Republicans left. More moderate estimates still have Dems getting 2-3, noting Santorum was dead on arrival, Chaffee has problems in RI, and Burns might be arrested before the race, and if not, is in bad shape. I doubt Dems get all 6 pick ups, but it’s early, and I’m curious to see how my predictions stack up.

Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton (an anti-choice and pro-choice senator, respectively) have proposed a bill that would require health insurances to cover birth control. The bill includes providing accurate sex education to low-income women. The purpose is to avoid the abortions. It tackles the problem at the root (one reason why I like Democrats).

There is no question that the rate of unintended pregnancy is too high in the United States.

Half of the 6 million pregnancies each year in this country are unintended, and nearly half of these unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. It doesn't have to be this way.

The article cites that many insurance plans cover Viagra, but not birth control. I’d love to see abortions much fewer, but like these two senators, I know that outlawing abortion doesn’t solve the problem. The Prevention First Act will certainly help. Hopefully, a receptive congress can hear this bill next year (I doubt that this would pass or even get time on the floor in the current House and Senate).

Senator John McCain spoke last week on a few topics, including the war in Iraq. He proved that he was completely ignorant on the subject, or perhaps landed in the wrong country:

Overall though, the Iraq war has proven to be "far worse" than the Vietnam War, said the former Vietnam prisoner of war.

"When we left Vietnam, the Vietnamese didn't want to come after us. These people -- (Abu Musab ) al-Zarqawi, (Osama) bin Laden and others -- they want to come after us. They're not interested in Iraq as much as they're interested in destroying us and everything we stand for and believe in. There is a great deal at stake here," McCain said.

Osama and Iraq, together again. Even the President gave up on that one. It really gets me angry when people lie about September 11^th for political gain. But this is disappointing. Our senators should not confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.

Scott McClellan has resigned from his post as White House Press Secretary. It is unconfirmed if he was lying when he said this, but chances are this was a moment of candor. "I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott.” There are plenty of Republicans in this country. Even though his approval ratings are so low, I’m sure he can find someone who can lie until they believe it.

I'm looking forward to the Daily Show tonight; I'm sure they'll give him a great send off.

The Immigration bill

More on the stall on immigration legislation. Apparently, Bush is still blaming Harry Reid for blocking the immigration bill in the Senate.

“Unfortunately, the compromise was blocked by the Senate Democratic minority leader," Bush said, accusing Reid of using a "procedural gimmick" to "single-handedly" block the bill.’

This was of course referring to Harry Reid’s ability to cast all 62 votes that went against cloture. In reality, 62 people voted to stall the bill and continue debate, only one of whom was Harry Reid. Note: there are only 45 Democrats in the Senate. Only 36 people voted to end debate and vote, showing a clear divide among Republicans on what to do on this bill. Half want the guest worker program, allowing immigrants to run into a 11 year process to gain citizenship, assuming they pay a fine, back taxes, learn English, and can prove they’ve been here for five years. The other half, apparently not seeing this is a horribly drawn out process that won’t work at all, feel this is rewarding illegal immigrants.

I would recommend the fine for citizenship. Although this rewards illegal activity, it will bring them into the workforce as a taxpayer, encourage workers to be documented (we should know who lives in our country), and serves the humanitarian cause of helping those in need. This is a long-time Democratic ideal, so I expect their support, but also Republicans who wanted to help out the Iraqi people by ‘liberating’ them apparently share this compassion. We can’t criminalize them for something we didn’t enforce in the past, that’s completely un-American. But we can enforce strong borders now. And to do that, bring our troops home. That includes our troops needlessly stationed in Europe, the Philippines, Cuba, etc. I know this is revolutionary and extreme, but I believe the National Guard should guard the nation. Feel free to comment, I know that last one would get the switchboards lighting up if I had a radio show.

One Republican doubts war

Senator Chuck Hagel, speaking from Pakistan, said today that military action in Iran is “is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” Great to hear, but this is interesting. Here is a country that is defying the US and the world, and certainly has intentions to build nuclear weapons, like Bush said Iraq did. Just because our military is tied up in Iraq we’re not going to attack Iran? To use that tired phrase from the Republicans, “I hate to think of the message this sends to the world.” “This will give comfort to our enemies.” Only when I say them, they're actually are relevant.

A correction, of sorts.

Perhaps I wrote too soon. I just reported Iran being 16 days away from nuclear weapons, and highlighted the dangers of “crying wolf.” Basically, Bush has lied far too much to ever be taken seriously, and this was back in 2003. But already, this claim by a state department official has been debunked by Mydd.com.

Apparently, if Iran were to perfect nuclear production methods and install enough centrifuges (which they can’t plan to do in 06 at least), then they theoretically could produce nuclear grade uranium in 16 days. Woops! Minor detail missing there. I’m looking forward to the story in 2009 when it is released that Bush knew this was a garbage scare tactic before it was said, but approved the message anyway. I just hope people realize this is not a failure of government, just a failure of Republican government.

Iranian nukes in 16 days

The scare tactics are beginning. Apparently, Iran can build a nuclear weapon in 16 days. The problem here is great. This could be a serious threat, but unfortunately it mirrors the lies that lead up to Iraq. Iraq is close to nukes; Iraq has mobile chemical weapons facilities; Saddam is a threat to America; secular Saddam worked with religious extremists from Al Qaeda; the list goes on and on.

And how will we know if this is true? We won’t. And this is perhaps the biggest security threat to America and the world. Bush and the Republicans are the boy who cried wolf. We need honest, respectable politicians to come into office. We need to clean house the November, and get in Democrats. If Republicans straighten out their party, rid them of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Frist, Delay (check), etc., and become a more moderate party, then I’ll try again to trust them. And Democrats take note: When you have the power back (hopefully November, or whenever), don’t abuse it.

Bush…lied?!

This is old news, but it’s now official that Bush lied back in May 2003 when he said “we found the weapons of mass destruction.” This was referring to trailers found that Bush claimed were mobile laboratories to make chemical weapons. The part that makes this news again is the fact that Bush knew at the time he said it that they weren’t in any way related to weapons of any level of destruction. Apparently Bush had the intelligence report changed to ‘justify’ the war. The reports that denied the trailers were of significance were shelved and classified.

News Bits – 4/11/06

Arnold Schwarzenegger came out in support of a bill to reduce emissions in the state by 25% in 2020. Great legislation, great call by Arnold. I know I support any Democrat over him, but he is one of my favorite Republicans. A Democrat in the Governors office (could happen this November) would mean more liberal legislation can be approved, more stringent environmental legislation, and equal marriage rights (I only read environmental news from Cali, I don’t know any other specifics).

The federal government, through Environmental Protection Agency administrator Stephen Johnson, warned China about its environmental record. Ironic, considering all the EPA has done under the Bush administration has resisted environmental standards and tried to roll back previous protections (not at all protecting anything but business). There is no argument though that China has a dirtier environment than ours (not per capita, but they are just getting going on clean energy), but perhaps the EU should be making this statement.

In a close election, Silvio Berlusconi has been voted out of office, and replaced with Romano Prodi. Berlusconi was a conservative billionaire, and staunch ally of Bush and the war in Iraq. Prodi is a center-left politician, and will move to end the war for Italians. If this happens, it will highlight the dwindling support, and hopefully help us get out. The election though was so close, with Prodi winning by .1%. New election rules give a huge boost to the winning party in the lower house though, so this .1% win is magnified, although parliament will still be close. The close election caused Berlusconi to refuse to concede until all checks are completed.

Conservative philosophy debunked; Rich get richer, poor and middle class get poorer

This follows completely the complaints I reported from common taxpayers this year. Wages went down for salary earners (adjusted for inflation: wages increased 2.95%, inflation up 3.10%), but increased for the top 100 companies executives by 25% (to 17.9 million a year). [Link]

This is a gross injustice, and it gets worse. Productivity is up, causing corporate profits to rise 21.3%. This income is sitting at the top, surprisingly not trickling down. Furthermore, theoretically, as full employment occurs (as it did in June 2005), companies bid for workers, causing salaries to rise. Didn’t happen. When situations like this occur, it takes government action to stabilize the economy.

So what action do I propose? Eliminating wasteful tax breaks. The $14 billion for oil and gas companies in the energy bill, the break on capital gains, dividend, and interest income taxes only help the rich. Bring back the Estate tax, and reform the AMT. Raise the taxes on the top bracket back to 39.6% from 35%. These changes bring us back to where we were before Bush’s horrible tax cuts that destroyed the budget. Also, close the tax loopholes and shelters that cost us billions, and increase funding for the IRS so they can audit tax cheats (read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston for details). This would help keep money flowing in the economy, not stagnating at the top while the poor are deprived.

Glad to see that the tax programs have statistically backfired on the President and Republicans. This is evidence of the flawed conservative philosophy, and reveals it as it for what it really is: the hope of rich people to get richer at any expense to the country and the citizens.

Everyone should support lenient immigration reform

The immigration bill is dead for now, thanks to infighting in the Republican Party. George Bush wants a guest worker program, opposed by the more conservative of Republicans. Democrats in the Senate were poised to accept a bill that appeared to be a compromise, which called for immigrants in the nation more than 5 years to pay a fine, learn English, and pay back taxes. This was considered a more moderate bill. Let me comment on this; isn’t forcing someone to learn English against American ideals? It would be an advantage to the immigrant, and no doubt the immigrant would strive to assimilate themselves, and therefore attempt to learn it on their own. Forcing them too is just another hurtle, and forces our culture on others. The fines I see as reasonable; you can’t let people break the law and go completely free, unless they are high ranking Republicans like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Frist, Bob Ney, Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, etc. (Their crimes include Illegal wiretapping, lying about the war, Abramoff bribes, Frist’s charity scam/insider trading, and Santorum’s K street project). Back taxes are a little different though. Undocumented workers don’t have any way to prove their past income, let alone how long they were in the country. The only way that you can legalize illegal immigrants is to fine them to gain citizenship, and register them. This would get them paying taxes, registered for security purposes, able to buy health insurance, get loans, and participate fully in the economy.

Granting illegal aliens residency would also allow them to vote, which brings up complications. Each party wants to be open to these immigrants, and the large Hispanic population that is sensitive to the issue. Republicans balking at this one is hurting them with the growing Hispanic voting block. This article shows the power of the immigrants. Rarely are their huge marches like this, including 500,000 in Los Angeles today. May 1^st is a general strike for all immigrants, legal and illegal, including refraining from work, buying, or selling. This is the power of democracy in action, and I fully support them in this fight. It is the American way to accept immigrants, and helps to promote our culture and government, which I think is the best in the world (despite my criticisms). For moral, cultural, and political reasons, all politicians should be open to immigration reform, and make it much more lenient than the current proposals are.

The 527 loophole

Recently, Republicans proposed closing the 527 loophole, which gave the Democrats more than three times as much funding as Republicans. The bill is completely politically motivated, but is actually quite progressive. Democrats naturally dragged their feet on it, but should in fact support it for many reasons.

First of all, the bill is progressive in nature. It bans unlimited contributions from moneyed interests, which puts the power in the hands of common people. Taking huge payments out of the system would take some of the influence away from corporations, unions (although I agree with their causes, the union members could provide their support instead hopefully), and billionaires. The politicians would be dependent upon small donations from lots of people. Recall when the soft money ban was put in place by McCain-Feingold. This was supposed to destroy the Democratic Party, but instead boosted its fundraising ability, and expanded the power of people in the party.

I just read an article that said taking the 527 organization and operations into the Democratic Party would be a huge advantage. While the Republicans do door-to-door and direct mailing, Democrats do on a smaller scale, and depend on 527's, such as environmental groups, to get support. This would improve the Democratic Party, if it picked up the slack and harnessed this grassroots support. Most importantly, if the Party took over these operations, it would let people know what the Democratic Party is all about. Of course our informed readers know what the Party is all about, but it would take away the criticism from ignorant Republicans. All in all, we should be right behind this bill, and pass it with our full support. This would show Democrats are not hypocritical on their values, and also help us out tons.

The middle class HATES Bush more than ever

I love when my blog can give you an exclusive report on something, like my visit to the protest in Bridgeport on Wed (for which I made the front page of the Connecticut Post), or my Trip to the Jefferson Jackson Baley dinner in Hartford. Now I can give you some insight into how a cross-section of 750 people feel about Bush’s handling of the economy.

Sure, you’ve seen the numbers. Those who approve his handling of the economy are usually right down there with the general approval ratings, around mid 30’s to low 40’s. My dad does taxes for middle class workers, teachers, and retirees mostly. He has heard constantly complaints on Bush this year, unique to previous years. They complain that his tactics of pandering to big business has left them unprotected. While Bush supports exploding pays of CEOs, people get laid off if profits are down. Wages are generally stagnant compared to last year. I’ve personally seen this when I organize their files, looking at 2 year comparison reports.

The middle class is suffering the brunt of the tax shortfall. The estate tax has been repealed, capital gains taxes are down to 15%, interest income and dividends are down. Sure, a few of his clients benefit from this. But most of them are saving $35, or some insignificant amount. Most don’t have any significant interest income or dividends, and capital gains are rare. What is common though is the alternative minimum tax. This was a tax put in place to prevent rich people from avoiding taxes by taking excessive deductions. Because the tax is not adjusted for inflation, it is encroaching on the middle class with alarming growth. This means higher taxes for almost all of the middle tax, while small tax cuts land on the poor, and huge tax cuts affect the rich.

People. Are. Pissed.

Sure, he’s been terrible for years. But this is the first time my father has heard it from lots and lots of tax payers. This is how you get angry voters to the polls. This is how you keep angry Republicans from the polls, or to defect against their party. This has change election written all over it.

And to fix the problem, Menendez of NJ has proposed a bill to reform the Alternative minimum tax, instead of abolishing it. We need the tax revenue, but it should come from the rich. Bravo senator, just another reason I like Senator Menendez, after his awesome speech and rejection of Samuel Alito. Either way, this is something to pounce on, and will get those people usually agnostic in politics to the polls. I’ll get more info on this and tell you what should be done. But this is great, and unreported news.

Republicans care about public opinion now?

The Republicans are very worried about their public opinion falling to all-time lows for the administration. Right before an election year, there is also strong sentiment to kick out old members of congress. When asked who people would prefer in control of congress, they answered 33% for Republicans, and 49% for Democrats. The other key factor in a huge election is conservative voter turnout. We know angry Democrats and independents will turn out, because they more than ever want a change. But will Republicans? Republicans are angry at the budget deficit, handling of the war.

For the first time in this poll, people trust Democrats to better handle national security than Republicans. Finally, people are seeing the light! The Democratic plan for national security focuses on fighting terrorism, expanding the national guard and reserve troops, adding spies and special forces, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I completely agree with all of this, as long as it’s coupled with a huge reduction in military spending (we don’t need nukes, bases all over the world, and 1.5 million troops.) Let’s bring them home to protect our borders and airports, serve as police where needed, and be on reserve to serve on UN peacekeeping missions.

Budget Problems

The 2007 fiscal budget has been put on hold for a while, while there is a recess approaching for congress. The hold up appears to have come from Republican infighting. As we know, when elections come, and Republicans need to get more support, they mimic Democrats to fool voters. Some moderates want extra money for health and services. Also, the $70 billion in tax cuts appears to have failed. This is great news, as the tax on Capital gains goes back up to 20%, and dividends are counted in normal income. The benefit of this is that this affects the rich, who are able to fund the government without interrupting their livelihoods, instead of our usual “screw the poor and middle class” Republican philosophy. This will help keep our deficit in the “terribly bloated” range, and not in the “criminally excessive” range. I’d have no problems with a deficit to fund constituent services, and not our $547 military bill.

Also to note: this could be the last budget that the Republicans completely control. Next budget should have a Democratic House to work with!

Bribes against public good

I know one way to cut drug costs, and therefore state debts and healthcare costs! Stop drug companies from spending $44 million to influence state parties, who have summarily balked at passing price reduction legislation. That’s a huge investment return for drug companies, and a huge burden on tax payers and people who use prescriptions. Meanwhile, drug companies are one of the most bloated profitable industries, like the oil industry, that is getting a break from the government at our expense. This shows why more than ever, we need a Democratic government.

Also, note that this was for the 2003-2004 election cycle, when Republicans received 66% of the pharmaceutical campaign contributions. Republicans currently get 68% for this election cycle.

Bush in Bridgeport

Today I have no national news headlines – well, sort of. This morning, we in Bridgeport had the honor of hosting the President. When I first heard he was coming to Bridgeport and holding an event with Chris Shays, I was nervous. A fundraiser like this could bring in a million dollars for Shays, and could tilt a close race. Of course there would be a backlash against Shays, due to Bush’s incredibly low approval ratings, coupled with Shays’ assertions that he is a moderate Republican.

It turns out that Shays was only at a town hall style Q+A with the president. So he only gets the backlash, and none of the money. Excellent news for all. Ironically, none of the audience were from Bridgeport, or any of the fourth district of CT, where Shays represents. The Q+A session dealt with Health Savings Accounts, which allow tax breaks to help pay for medical bills. Of course, those who can save money like this are the people who have health care already, so this does nothing for those without health care. For the President to come to one of the poorest cities in the country and talk about this plan shows that he has no serious plans for healthcare. Shays getting caught up in this was a terrible idea for him, and quite telling of his “moderate” stance. Shays was also for the war in Iraq, privatizing social security, No Child Left Behind, etc.

Afterwards, Dianne Farrell, Shays challenger, held a press conference. It was quick, and she outlined a plan for Universal Healthcare, which is part of the Democrat’s national agenda. She spoke about Massachusetts, which yesterday passed a plan for near universal healthcare. Businesses over 10 employees that don’t provide healthcare pay $295 per employee. The money is used to give those without health insurance free or reduced price state health insurance. They estimate 95% of the uninsured will be covered.

Also, Farrell spoke about a plan for withdrawal. Unfortunately, she didn’t say “lets get out immediately, or at the end oft the year.” What she did suggest was a timetable based on events, such as Iraqi’s getting security, electric power, water, employment, and oil production necessary to finance a portion of their government. I haven’t heard a similar approach, but it seems like a quite reasonable one. She took questions, and although it was hard to hear much else, it was a great press conference and a great political move.

I look forward to seeing the President again, although I only got to witness his motorcade speed in and speed away. There was a good sized group of between 50-100 protestors, and we were interviewed by the Connecticut Post. I’ll let you know if I’m in it tomorrow!

Climate change exists for Republicans too?

Congress has finally begun debate on climate change, starting in the Senate Energy Committee. I suppose this is historic, as this is a Republican led Senate acknowledging reality. The steps were minor, and are hampered by Republican committee leader Pete Domenici, who “has warned it would be "impossible" to pass legislation to cut heat-trapping gas emissions in 2006 because of election-year gridlock.” My take on that is, he won’t be able to receive as many utility company campaign contributions if he proceeds with legislation (I’m assuming he’s like the rest of Republicans, who receive 85% of the oil and gas industries' campaign contributions).

He did state that we can start legislation in 2007, which is somewhat promising. The plan to fight climate change is a mandatory cap on emissions. Those who release under that cap can sell their excess to those who fail to go under the cap. This system adds cost to “dirty” power like coal, and subsidizes cleaner energy, but all takes place in the private sector. Objections were raised as to who pays for the technology, that we already have, to be implemented. Another problem to be worked out is how high the caps will be, how expensive the credits will be, and when this will go into effect. The good part is, this system seems imminent. It is suggested that this could go into effect as early as 2010. Comically, the argument was made that mandatory caps are not necessary, because corporations are doing this themselves. That’s a joke; it’s obvious that government stimulus is the only way to do this effectively and quickly.

In other news, California is working on legislation to cut emissions by 25% by 2020, in a variety of sectors. This is similar to the Northeast, which has created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which cuts power plant emissions gradually in future years.

Delay is gone

Tom Delay, disgraced former Republican congressional leader, will not run again in 2006. This comes in the midst of many legal/ethical troubles. This is bad for Democrats, because this would have been a good takedown, and a moral booster. A new candidate, without Delay’s baggage, has a much better chance.

Tom Delay is a politician I will never forget. Because of him, I decided to go into politics. It all goes back to the new source review law. This law was a horrible handout to the oil refineries, who are perhaps the least in need of money. It said that refineries that expand output are not subject to environmental restrictions that new plants are subject to. The law was in place to prevent companies from expanding refineries without improving their emissions, instead of building a new refinery which would be subject to these laws. Everyone had voted, and the measure to destroy the new source review had failed. Phew! But Republican Denny Hastert didn’t announce the result. This gave time for Tom Delay to yell at Republicans that had sided with Justice, and make them change their vote. This took 45 minutes, and finally there were enough votes to destroy the bill. The Senate had the sense not to pass the bill, so his efforts were in vain. And their was a backlash, me getting into politics, that came from that.

We’ll miss you Tom, but I’m sure another corrupt Republican will rise up to your position of the most criminal member of Congress.