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.

Yesterday Exxon announced that it raked in $10.9 billion in profits for the first three months of 2008. 10.9 BILLION DOLLARS in only THREE months? Something is wrong here.

Don’t get me wrong; I have no problem with companies making profits. But Exxon is making obscene profits from the pockets of Americans who are now having trouble buying food to feed their kids.

I’m no economist but my understanding is that a profit occurs when a product is sold for more than it is acquired for. How does Exxon get away with selling gas for $4 a gallon then boast to us about the billions they made off of us without the American public storming their corporate headquarters?

What will happen next?

Will Exxon suddenly decide to sell gas for $2 a gallon and make a meager $5 billion over the next three months? NO! They don’t care what we have to sacrifice to obtain their product. They know they can charge whatever they want and the demand for their product will not lessen…they do it everyday.

This is an insult to our intelligence and the solution must come from Washington. No, not in the form of a suspension of the federal gas tax over the summer, which is only 18 cents a gallon is not even likely to lower the over price of gas. There must be laws put into place that tax oil companies profits. This would be common sense don’t you think?

Why haven’t these taxes been put into place yet? My guess is that the oil companies and their billions of dollars (unfortunately) are very persuasive to the people we elect to make laws.

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.

You can’t escape the constant headlines about baseball and steroids. Just when you thought the Barry Bonds “asterisk” debate was over here comes the media shoving another story about baseball and steroids down our throat.

Roger Clemens… Did he use them or not?

I don’t care!

Back when all these players (which seems like EVERY player) were using these drugs the world of baseball was a different place. The strike just ended and fans were struggling to find a reason to come back and watch a ball game. Players juiced up in a successful attempt to get their fans back in the seats.

Back then these drugs were not illegal! They have recently become illegal substances, and we are treating these athletes as if they used them yesterday.

That aside, my main concern is not whether or not baseball players are using steroids, but why is Congress involved with this?

Are you telling me that the biggest problem America has is figuring out whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids a few years ago? Give me a break!

The ONLY reason why Congress has involved itself in this is to get their faces on TV to make it seem like they are actually doing something. When a person sees their member of Congress on TV they think ‘hey he’s doing something!’ and he gets reelected. It’s (sadly) that simple. Especially with something as high profile as this where these Congressmen get to grill a famous baseball player and make him look stupid.

Unfortunately it is the Congressmen who are looking stupid (and with giant ears).

Go do your job! Try to fix the economy, or just go a stalemate a bill.

Do nothing in private like you always do. Don’t drag us in to watch the paint dry!

I remember my first time gambling when I was 18. My friend and I drove for over an hour out into the into the Northern California mountains. We got to Jackson Rancheria Casino, walked inside and within 3 minutes we were out of money. We looked at each other, muttered some choice words about “all Indian casinos” and drove home with our tails between our legs.

Since then I have been to several Indian casinos throughout California and Oregon. All with similar results, the trips usually last under 30 minutes and I have never won a dime. (When I go to Vegas I never lose by the way). But do I care, NO! It was my choice to lose my lunch money at an Indian casino.

California’s Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 all passed on Super Tuesday ensuring California billions of dollars from Indian gaming. The propositions allow Indian casinos to build more slot machines and also raise the amount of money they have to pay to the California government.

As it is with all ‘sin taxes’ this is a hotly debated issue. Some say that Indian casinos are a good source of income for the state because the money is being spent anyways, while others argue that it is wreck less for the state to rely on money from Indian gaming.

It is not wreckless; not tapping this enormous source of money is wreckless given the budget deficits we now face.

When looking at the Governor’s budget it features huge cuts to public education, among other services. We cannot afford to weaken our children’s educations! We don’t want our future leaders to not be able to add 2 plus 2 (although some would say they already can’t). Arnold doesn’t want to cut education but The Governator’s hands are tied. His only other alternative is making good on his campaign promises of making Indian casinos pay their fair share.

Expanding Indian gaming in California is a great idea. It will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in a year that would pay for services such as public education and medical reimbursements. It would make gambling more visible in the state, but it is still up to the consumer to choose to gamble. Making it more readily available does not mean that you have to go do it.

Maybe next time they will author a proposition that will make the games fairer so I can win some money when I go there!!! Losing 10 hands of blackjack in a row with the dealer showing a 6 makes you wonder.

“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.

After the onslaught of victories on Super Tuesday by John McCain (and the surprise…again…of Huckabee’s victories) it appears that it is mathematically impossible for Mitt Romney to catch up in the delegate race. The McCain campaign released this:

“The remaining contests account for roughly 963 delegates. For Mitt Romney to match our delegate count, he would have to win more than 50 percent of those delegates. And, he would have to win nearly every single delegate still available in order to become the nominee. And, many of these contests are proportional, so Mitt will have to win by big margins in many states to garner every last delegate. For example, in this weekend’s Louisiana primary, he would have to win the with more than 50 percent of the vote in order to win (1191 delegates to win, 963+236=1,199). ”

Even if Huckabee wasn’t in the race taking up Romney votes it would be an impossible task for Romney to catch up. So congratulations Senator McCain and good luck against the Democrats (your gonna need it)!

I have been wondering how Romney stuck around this long, he didn’t seem like a viable candidate to me a few months ago. When looking at his “fundraising” it seems that he has been buying his way to his 2nd place finish.

According to opensecrets.org Mr. Romney has “raised” over $88,000,000, twice as much as Senator McCain’s $41,000,000. We all know that Romney is wealthy beyond belief and has largely self-financing his campaign (giving himself over $35,000,000), but was this a good investment?

I find it humorous at the amount Huckabee has raised in relation to his impact, though January he raised a mere $8,900,000. Romney has spent over $80,000,000 more than Huckabee and it is still a battle between the two!

When looking at the campaign debts category Romney’s number is alarming, he has $35,000,000 in campaign debts! McCain has just over $4,500,000, and Huckabee $97,000. $35 million where does that go? When he loses does he have to pay that himself? What a horrible use of money. He probably could have cured some disease, or saved Darfur with that! The problem is that almost every candidate wishes they had that kind of money!

I want candidates who are so in tune with the needs of the country and can resonate their vision with the people so effectively that they get enough support from the voters. Financing your own campaign is like paying for a hot prom date.

Photo: Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran - “The presidents of Venezuela and Iran boasted Monday that they will defeat U.S. imperialism together, saying the fall of the dollar is a prelude to the end of Washington’s global dominance.” - AP

Did I read this right? The presidents of Venezuela and Iran are trying to take down the US?? I have gone off enough about Iran’s president so on to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. I don’t know who put what in his coffee but how can even publicly say anything about taking down any country, let alone the United States.

Louisiana, Connecticut, as well as 24 other US states have a higher GDP than the entire country of Venezuela. Chavez, how about you set your sights on something within your reach, how about Nigeria or Oman?

“God willing, with the fall of the dollar, the deviant U.S. imperialism will fall as soon as possible, too,” Chavez said after a two-hour closed meeting with Ahmadinejad, the Iranian state news agency IRNA reported.”(AP)

Good job buddy go ahead and try to make the dollar rise, that’ll work.

And now if you don’t mind I’m gonna go step outside and try to fly.

Is the ‘winner take all’ electoral college unfair? The Electoral College itself is not just unfair but inherently stupid, and the fact that if a candidate receives 49% of the vote in a state and will receives zero votes for it is ridiculous.

California Representative Issa is trying to do something about it.

California Counts is an initiative collecting signatures in order to get on the June ballot in California. Under the proposal candidates will receive one Electoral College vote for every congressional district they win.

Under the current system the presidential candidate that gets the highest percentage of votes in a given states receives ALL of that states electoral votes. In some states that only have a handful of electoral votes this is not an issue, but in states such as California it is a major issue.

The winner of California will receive 55 electoral votes. The Democratic candidate ALWAYS wins California. Candidates know this and only come to California to raise money, not to ask for our votes. In the 2004 presidential election President Bush received 44% of the votes in California and received 0 electoral votes for it.

After reading this I wondered if the outcome of the 2004 election would be any different if the electoral college was not a ‘winner take all’ but based on the percentage of votes received. For example, like I said in 2004 President Bush received 44% of the California vote, Senator Kerry received about 54%. If the votes were based on that percentage President Bush would have received 44 electoral votes, and Kerry 54 electoral votes. This is a huge difference!

I broke it down state by state by percentage to see if the outcome would change. The verdict: Bush still won, and all that it did was made the election closer.

There were very few states that the two candidates were not very close in percentage of vote, the difference makers were the big states.

If the electoral votes were based on percentage of actual vote, not ‘winner take all’ President Bush would have received 278 electoral votes, while Senator Kerry would have received 260. The candidate with 270 votes wins.

The actual results were: President Bush 286, Senator Kerry 252

So does this mean that the ‘winner take all’ system is best? NO. If the percentage system was in place during the 2004 election, the candidates would have campaigned far differently than they actually did. They know which states they will win or lose automatically, and spend their time accordingly in states that they can win. If they knew that they need to appeal to all voters, we would see vastly different campaigns, and the outcome would reflect much closer to what the voters actually want.

I strongly encourage all California voters to sign the petition at www.calcounts.com.

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

President Bush feels the rumble…Wednesday in a press conference he discussed Russian President Vladamir Putin’s new friendship with Iran. President Bush went onto say that Iran would be raising the risks of “World War II.” Wait…isn’t that what I said on Tuesday??

According to the most recent Zogby Poll, President Bush’s approval rating is at an all time low, a sickening 24%. The talk of invading Iran while our troops are stuck in quagmires all over Iraq may have something to do with this number! Not to mention that fact that there are countless presidential candidates talking about how they would make the country better. When this is going on it seems to discredit the current president, even though he did the same thing when he was campaigning.

W. is not alone, in the same Zogby Poll the approval rating of Congress is at an all time low of 11%! Eleven percent? Yea, I had to spell it out. That is just stupid! Congressional approval ratings have been low since the beginning of polling, but eleven percent?

If we as voters do not trust the people we elect then why do we ALWAYS elect the same type of candidates?

Go look up the definition of insanity…exactly.

Sources:
John Whitesides, Reuters
Brian Knowlton, The New York Times

Photo: Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2007. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

Has anyone else noticed the tension between the US and Russia? It’s so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Today Russian president Vladamir Putin, while visiting Tehran, warned the US against attacking Iran. Saying “…no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state.” It has been said that the US would use the Caspian region to launch attacks on Iran.

The fact that Russia is building Iran a nuclear plant in Russia does worry me a bit. But not as much as what Putin said next, “Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and Iranian people, will lead nowhere, they are not afraid, believe me.” Wow, do I feel the rumblings of World War III?

If Russia is now in bed with Iran I suppose they don’t like threats, they like action…well covert, deniable action.

With Russia as their new ally, Iran does not need nuclear weapons. Russia has plenty!

What does Russia see in Iran anyways? Maybe Putin likes the ‘death to America’ chants, or perhaps he has a love for secretly building bombs that kill Americans without any repercussions.

Nah, it’s probably just the food.

Source: VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press