Political Frenzy

Yesterday Senate Republicans blocked the vote of a bill that would tax the windfall profits of oil companies as well as end their tax breaks. The Republicans said that we need to focus on more sources for oil.

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way? We are paying over $4 a gallon for gas in this country, Exxon makes billions in profit PER MONTH, we do not tax their absurd profits, and we give them $17 billion in tax breaks??? The Senate proposes a bill that would tax the windfall profits of these companies and end their billion-dollar tax breaks and elected officials have the gall to say no?

The Republicans said that raising the taxes on the oil companies will not lower the price of gas at the pump. This may be true, but wouldn’t that be the first step?

The oil companies have us by our throats, and this response by the Republicans only solidifies their grip. We need to start to shake free of these oil companies, there must eventually be a first step. Whats the worst that could happen $5 a gallon? That’s probably going to happen soon anyway!

“Besides the new levies, the bill would also have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.” Does any of this sound bad?

Taxing windfall profits of oil companies, getting rid of their tax breaks (it should be a joke that they even get tax breaks), opening the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel, and making energy price gouging a federal crime are things that should already be the norm.

It is absolutely absurd that it costs more for a gallon of gas than some people make an hour, the companies who sell gas are making billions in profit per month, and we give them tax breaks, and the freedom to price gauge.

We have all heard our members of Congress mention the need for alternative energy, but today they blocked a bill that would give $50 billion in tax credits to renewable energy research and development.

So let me get this straight, we give Exxon tax breaks, but not the companies who create renewable energy?

I guess it does make sense; oil companies have more money to contribute to politicians than renewable energy companies do. I wonder why nothing ever gets done?

Other blogs:
http://www.radicalavenue.com/press-babble/

Today while defending her decision to stay in the presidential race Senator Clinton said,

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Nothing like a good ol’ Freudian slip!

The Clinton campaign immediately responded to the remark saying, “She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer.”

This point of reference is simply not valid.

In 1968 the nominating season was far different than today’s. On June 5, the day of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, there were primaries held in 13 states. It was their equivalent of our ‘Super Tuesday.’

Of course the candidates stayed in the race well into the summer, they had 13 primaries that day!!! By June 3rd of this year every state will have already voted.

Time has nothing to do with this debate; it’s all about numbers. We want Hillary to drop out because it is mathematically impossible for her to win, not because it’s almost June!

Not only was this an extremely insensitive thing to say, but also it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Mrs. Clinton is getting increasingly desperate and she is starting to hurt her public image. Obama is 56 delegates away from clinching the nomination. Clinton’s arguments over the votes in Michigan and Florida not counting are ridiculous and her logic about the subject hurts my brain.

Hillary…..I think it’s time.

Why won’t she just drop out?

There are a number of reasons why Hillary won’t just drop out of the race. Let’s explore a few of them.

First of all, and this is one nobody is talking about, Al Gore has not endorsed anyone yet. We all know that a Gore endorsement would go a long way for either of these candidates. If Al stepped out today and endorsed Hillary publicly what would be the outcome? Would it be enough to get her out of the deepening hole that she is now in?

Probably not

Al Gore is not likely to endorse a candidate who is all but sure to lose the nomination. He wants to put the weight of his name behind his party’s candidate to further boost the candidate’s visibility come general election time. Or does he? Is being friends with the Clinton’s enough to make him endorse Hillary’s sinking candidacy? (NO)

Another reason she could be waiting is to go out on top after a big win in West Virginia next Tuesday, where she has a huge lead in the polls. Clinton is actively campaigning in West Virginia, at the same time I haven’t heard of Obama making any campaign stops out there.

She will use the state of West Virginia to plead her case for the Vice Presidency. She will try to say that Obama cannot win ‘working class voters.’ Which is ludicrous…. (More about this in a future post.)

I have also heard of her campaign coming up with a deal with the Obama campaign to pay off her campaign debt of $20+ million.

The gas tax holiday proposed by opponents Senators Clinton and McCain is nothing more than a campaign gimmick.

Both candidates know that it doesn’t make fiscal sense; they also know that by proposing something like this that the American people will not look into whether or not it makes fiscal sense.

Again, this is an assault on our intelligence as voters. They think that we don’t understand that the suspension of a federal tax would cause long terms economical problems in an economy that is now in recession. The experts that have weighed in on the ‘gas tax holiday’ are even saying that it might not even lower the price of gas for consumers.

I’ll be honest when I first heard John McCain propose to cut gas prices I was happy, but then I realized that it would be a mere band-aid on a bullet wound. Suspending the gas tax for three months will only create more problems. Even if the overall price of gas was lowered by 18 cents per gallon, on a typical 13 gallon fill up that’s a whopping savings of over $2.

Big deal

McCain and Clinton also know that there is no way that the House and Senate could pass the bill in time for the ‘holiday.’ Congress just doesn’t work that fast.

Instead of taking money away from our country’s infrastructure how about we tax the oil companies (over a certain threshold of profit) who despite a ’supply problem’ still manage to make billions of dollars a month in profit ?

After last night’s ‘big’ Clinton victory in Pennsylvania it is now impossible for either her or Senator Obama to claim the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. What does this mean? It means that your vote no longer counts.

As of today Obama has 1,719 delegates, while Clinton has managed 1,586.

The now infamous ‘Super delegates’ will now decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Isn’t that just great? These candidates raise and spend tens of millions of dollars per month, campaign up and down the country to get their message across to us voters, and it doesn’t even matter if we vote because these ‘Super delegates,’ not you, will now decide who the nominee will be.

What the heck is a Super delegate? “Super-delegates are designed to act as a check on ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates. It also gives power to people who have a vested interested in party policies: elected leaders. ” (source: About.com). Super delegates were a reaction to Democratic nominee George McGovern in 1972. In the general election McGovern won only one state and a mere 37.5% of the popular vote.

This is another example of how voters are not trusted to pick their leaders. It ensures that the same brand of entrenched politics will always be around.

CHANGE we can believe in? Let’s hope so, because old school Democratic fat cats are not likely to vote for someone who wants to change anything.

“Why doesn’t Congress do anything?”
“Tradition mostly” – Congressman Charlie Wilson

When I say the word ‘politician’ what do you think of? Most people would respond with ‘sleazy,’ ‘scandalous,’ or some other word that would require me to hide the children.

Much has been talked about as to how to keep our politicians from become corrupt, and to get the corrupt ones out. The problem is that the ones who need to be governed by laws are the ones who make the laws. It’s a catch-22.

One idea that gets tossed around (to make it look like they are trying to fix the problem) is term limits. In the California State Legislature members are allowed to serve a total of 14 years between the two houses. 8 years as a State Senator and 6 as a member of the Assembly. Recently the leadership (who all just so happened to stand to be termed out at the end of their current terms) introduced Proposition 93.

Like most of politics there has been nothing but confusion surrounding Prop 93, which California voters defeated on Super Tuesday. This 53% opposed proposition was marketed using a successful tactic of confusion. Voters were unsure if it eliminated term limits, shortened term limits, increased speed limits, or who even supported it.

All that Prop 93 would have done was shortened the total amount of years to 12 years of service, but it would allow a person to serve all twelve years in the same house.

Prop 93’s support was also confusing. At one point the Governor didn’t support it, but then suddenly endorsed it. Some say he realized that 3 or the 4 leaders in the State Legislature would become ‘lame ducks’ if the proposition didn’t pass and would make it impossible for the Governor to advance his agenda.

Prop 93 was a good idea, but term limits are only a mere band-aid on the malignant issue. The issue should not be how long politicians should serve; it should be about us finally holding them accountable to their service. Let’s say that Speaker Nunez was using special interest money to go on Luis Vuitton shopping sprees in Paris as the anti-Prop 93 commercials touted, then why do his term limits matter? If he is using money other than his own to live his ‘opulent lifestyle’ he shouldn’t be re-elected even if he was eligible.

Every voter is afraid of politicians who are in bed with special interest groups, the ones who don’t pay attention to us anymore. We all see that some of our U.S. Congressmen and women are corrupt; we see Jack Abramoff in FBI custody, our Representatives homes being raided, and Senators asking for “favors” in airport bathrooms.

Congress’ overall approval rating is historically below 30% every year, and was as low as 11% in 2007. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll last September asked, “Overall, how much do you think Congress has accomplished this year: a great deal, a good amount, not too much, or nothing at all?” 2% answered “A great deal,” 14%, “A good amount,” and 65% said “Not too much.”

We don’t trust out members of Congress, but we consistently re-elect them at rates over 95%.

The fact that these people spend millions of dollars running for a job that pays around $160,000 a year should be cause to throw a penalty flag. They do it because they get away with anything, they always have. If you give a mouse a cookie…

Look at Congressman John Doolittle, he has been under investigation by the FBI for years now, and he has been re-elected 8 times! While his colleagues were being thrown in jail he was out being re-elected. Are we nuts!? People he works with are being thrown in jail and we just say ‘ok, but you aren’t doing that stuff right? Ok we’ll re-elect you.’ Doolittle finally had to announce that he wouldn’t run for re-election in 2008. (District 4 rejoice, you don’t have to re-elect him again!). I suppose the FBI raids on his homes made him wonder if he stood a chance in November, nah he would have been re-elected.

Unfortunately voters have become mindless lemmings when it comes to elections. Just because someone was elected does not mean that they have to be re-elected! If we paid attention to what our politicians were doing and held them accountable for their actions term limits would be unnecessary. The fact that we have term limits in California shows that we don’t trust ourselves to hold our elected officials accountable.

With the way we don’t pay attention to what our politicians do they would get away with murder, and no I won’t make a Ted Kennedy reference here.

Today Senator McCain attacked Senator Obama on public election financing. McCain’s camp said that last spring Obama’s campaign said Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly-financed general election.”

Campaigns that are publicly financed means that each campaign would receive around $85 million from a taxpayer financed fund. But if they accept it they are not allowed to raise money elsewhere.

McCain said that Obama should “keep his word to the American people.”

First of all, Obama isn’t the nominee yet, and neither is McCain. So let’s not count the chickens before they hatch (even though on the Republican egg I can see the beak). Secondly an attack on Obama is good news for Barack’s campaign because that shows that the Republicans are already counting on him winning the nomination.

The thing that I don’t like about this type of attack is that Obama has said nothing about using public financing during the general election. By McCain challenging something Obama has said nothing about it makes it look like Obama has already said he won’t use public financing. Ahhh classic politics.

Let’s be honest here, the only reason McCain has brought this up is because he knows he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell at raising even half the money Obama would. In January Obama raised over $32 million dollars, mostly from small donations. When looking at cash each campaign has on hand, it is not surprise. Obama has over $18 million while McCain has just about $3 million.

If the candidates agreed to both use public financing it would take away a huge advantage from Obama. When his campaign made that comment last spring I’m sure they didn’t realize that they would become a money machine in 2008.

If Obama does receive the nomination he has a huge decision to make. Should he reject his proposal of using public financing and dominate McCain with his millions. Or should he stick to his word and have a level playing field with McCain?

The smart thing for him to do would be to reject the public financing and take the wrath that comes with a flip-flop. McCain won’t have much money to get the message out that Obama flip-flopped in the first place.

As most people know Stephen Colbert has announced that he will run for president…in South Carolina. He is attempting to get on the ballot in South Carolina as a Democrat and a Republican.

“Man of the Year” for real? No, he is only running in one state.

While the tone of his ‘candidacy’ is humorous at best, other candidates have actually responded to it. Colbert says he is the favorite son of South Carolina, and Doritos will sponsor his candidacy.

This is a joke, but it didn’t stop the John Edwards campaign from ‘firing back.’ “What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won’t grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry,” Wells said. “As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn’t in the pocket of the snack food special interests.”

Are they joking? It is hard to tell.

Colbert has an enormous fan base and is wildly popular with the college crowd, I watch “The Report.”

Something like this has never been done before. It will be interesting to see if his one state candidacy actually makes real candidates keep responding to things that he does.

Source: AP

Bill, sorry, Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of candidates who are actually trying (appearing) to want to do something! She has announced her plan for “universal” healthcare. On her website you can download her plan in a pdf file.

She must have read how much I love pdf files!!

I’m pretty sure that this is the first time that I have said something positive about Hillary. I’m not agreeing with the plan, I’m just happy that she has come up with one (in a pdf). The other candidates who have no plans are a waste of time.

Fred Thompson was quick to criticize “HillaryCare” on a video on his website Fred08.com. Thompson, ever the advocate for the small government, showed his frustration in the video which was filmed in the back of a moving car. Thompson said that he does not agree with Hillary’s principles, especially the part of her plan in which employers being required to check if new applicants have healthcare.

Ehh, ok that does make sense. Employers do provide employees with healthcare, so why are they required to have it when applying for a job?

Chicken or the egg?

Universal healthcare has been the Bain of politician’s existence for years now. They mostly agree that our healthcare system needs reform, but don’t seem able to get past the dreaded drug companies and their lobbyists.

Will the BILLary plan work? I don’t know, but at least s/he has proposed one. It is mostly smoke and mirrors but how many Republicans have released a healthcare plan?

Fred Thompson (seen above with his wife Jeri) has officially declared his candidacy for president, about time. He joins the race “late” with tons of support from the right.

Thompson says he will promote, “limited government, an aggressive foreign policy and lower taxes — and promised a commitment to securing the borders and appointing conservative judges.”

Excuse me for not giving Thompson a ’standing O.’

Not to say that some (2) of the Democratic candidates are actually promoting change more so than any Republican, but give me a break. In a campaign promise he says he will ‘appoint conservative judges?’ Oh boy, that will change everything!

Not to sound like one of those lefties, but issues such as our soldiers dying in Iraq without clear objectives and millions of uninsured Americans unable to get life saving surgeries are a bit more important to me than appointing conservative judges!!!

I understand that he is aiming at getting the Republican nomination, and to do so you have to say things that make you look like you are teetering on the edge of the right, because only hard core Republicans will be voting in the primary. But he will have to bring his promises back to the middle if he wants to win over swing voters in the general election. However, in his speech he criticized other candidates who have flip-flopped their positions.

He is setting himself up to fail.

I don’t want a president who only caters to one ideology, and neither should you. We have seen what can happen. A president has to make tough choices for the greater good, not the greater right edge (or left edge). There are far more Americans who are in the middle than who are on either side.

The only ones who are on the two extremes are the people we elect to ‘represent’ us.

Sources: WashingtonPost.com

In this week’s presidential polls a familiar yet-unfamiliar face has taken up the number three position in the democratic race: Al Gore.

First in the poll is Hillary Clinton with (an I hope we don’t really vote like this) 35%, second is Senator Obama with 23%, and Al Gore who hasn’t even mentioned that he would be willing to run for president pulled in the third spot with 10%. John Edwards is next with 6%.

The only way Al Gore will not be elected president is if he doesn’t run.

All of these candidates are running full scale campaigns and the name Gore is beating nearly all of them. For a person to consistently pull in such high poll numbers without even being a candidate is incredible. And I’m not talking a Fred Thompson “I’m not a candidate,” because clear Mr. Thompson IS a candidate. Al Gore is NOT a candidate.

Gore is waiting for everyone else to attack each other and spend all of their money. At a time when we are all sick of the names we have been hearing over and over for the past year, Gore will swoop in as the savior and announce that he is running for president. As we all know Gore won the popular vote in 2000, at a time when his name was tarnished by the Clinton scandals. Can you imagine how much support he would have today?

Let’s be honest, presidential campaigns are popularity contests. It is sad but we as citizens do not know enough about government to make truly informed electoral decisions. Al Gore is as popular as any politician can be. He is the face of the global warming movement, he represents change, and will capitalize on the ‘if I were elected’ aspect of the Bush presidency. Not to mention he will have all sorts of celebrities coming out to support him, which will drive even more people to vote.

The best candidates are the ones who don’t want to run.

Recently the issue of health care has been at the top of the agendas of the media and presidential candidates. So let’s roll with it.

An editorial in the New York Times today, “Bleak Findings on Health Insurance,” discussed how there are over 47 million Americans without health insurance. This is a terrible number because each of these people are one health problem away from being ruined financially, which means our taxes WILL go up. Somebody has to pay their bills.

In my home state, California, there is a heated debate between Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature on what to do about the health care crisis (I like how when people pay attention to it it becomes a crisis, even though the numbers have been the same for years). California has the opportunity to set the example for the rest of the country, let’s hope we do so.

However the big crisis is not that of health care, it is of politics.

The only reason that our nation does not have truly universal health care is because of partisan bickering. Canada has universal health care; there is no reason that we cannot! The only thing that politicians care about is who gets the credit for coming up with the plan.

It is ridiculous.

Here is a video from John Edwards’ presidential campaign in which he discusses health care. I am not supporting any candidates yet, but this video has some strong points:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, feeling heat from every corner of the political world, resigned today. Democrats were very happy saying that they have been calling for his resignation for months.

Gonzales is blamed for approving illegal wiretapping of Americans, the firing of US Attorneys, and approving torture on enemy combatants (among other things). President Bush said that Gonzales was being “dragged through mud for political reasons.”

It is very easy for any Attorney General to be criticized because the job, much like the presidency, entails making decisions that are so tough that they are brought up the ladder to him. When a decision reaches this place in the political system whatever decision is made is bound to make one group of people mad, and the other happy.

We never hear from the group of people who are happy, it doesn’t sell newspapers.

There seems to be a debate brewing about the experience of Barack Obama. His fellow contenders (basically only Clinton, who loves to attack) say that he does not have the experience to be president.

What qualifies as experience to be president?

Our history says the answer is: over 40 years old, white male, former Governor.

Most people would agree with me that the 2008 election is going to be different. There is a very good chance that a woman or a non-white man will be president. The American people are in need of leadership; we are in need of change.

Article II, section 1 of our Constitution states the only real qualifications to be president: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Founders made these qualifications very vague for a reason. They want the voters to decide what qualifies someone to be our president.

Now the question is do we want our next president, the person who will bring change and raise America’s stature in the world again, to be a person with fresh ideas, or do we want a “Washington Insider?”

What is the definition of insanity again?

Today John Edwards, seeking to capitalize on his YearlyKos moment, asked Senator Barack Obama to co-sign a letter to Democratic leaders to ban the acceptance of funds from Federal Lobbyists. Both men have policies, unlike Mrs. Clinton, to never accept money from Federal Lobbyists.

Obama declined the Edwards “invitation,” his campaign stated, “It’s not enough just to refuse their money, we have to curb their influence.” In other words… ‘Damn, I should have asked HIM first!’

It is a great idea to ban money from Federal Lobbyists, most Democrats (who want to get re-elected) would agree. The problem is that it will never happen…ever. The concept is not the problem; the problem is that members of Congress hate to give credit to someone else for a good idea.

Instead of admitting that another member’s idea is good, they will re-word it and say that the proposal is not enough, that the author did not think of all the angles.

This is the main problem with Congress today, nobody wants to give anyone else credit for a good idea, and one party will never (ever) give the other credit for a good idea. It is a perfect formula for getting nothing done.

Did you hear that sound? I think it was Thomas Jefferson rolling over…