Yesterday the Senate passed a Republican resolution rather than the Democratic sponsored resolution setting a weak time table for withdrawal from Iraq and adding reporting requirements on the White House after a whopping four minutes of debate. Was this a wise move?

I ask you Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard?

William Kristol: Pathetic

All honor to the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too, we-want-to-get-out-as-well-but-not-quite-as-quickly, Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. Let's hope their colleagues reconsider and join their ranks in the near future.

The answer is: Correct!!! it is pathetic. Obviously the Senate is pandering to the polls here and Al-Zaqueery can be satisfied that his predictions about US behavior are sadly accurate.

Prediction: Al-Qaeda in Iraq will now bide their time waiting for the US to bow to pressure both domestic and foreign to do what he canÂ’t. Push the US out and get his opportunity to establish an Islamic fascist state in Iraq.

Freddie "The Beetle" Barns?

Fred: Oh shut up Howie.

Posted by: Howie at 01:45 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 2 kb.

Yes since Gov Rod's helpers seem so interested in my saftey let's see what their boss is up to.

ILL Republican Newsletter Nov 4th

·ROD WON'T TALK. As of today, the new Blagojevich administration policy, regarding confirming subpoenas delivered to state agencies, will be 'not to say anything' and refer inquiries to the U.S. Attorney's office. This week's state agency receipts included four new subpoenas in what appears to be an investigation, agency by agency, into suspicious hiring practices. Apparently, there are so many incoming subpoenas that confirming each and every one would take up too much of the governor's press office time. The U.S. Attorney's office is not in the habit of commenting on ongoing investigations. The administrations' disappointing decision puts an end to any transparency the office may have had. A veil of secrecy over the administration's legal wounds will prove to be a politically damaging practice. (Sun Tim es 11/4)

· ICC CHAIRMAN FAILS TO PASS SENATE. Marty Cohen failed to receive enough votes from the Illinois State Senate this week to be confirmed as the new ICC Chairman. Cohen was seen as a politically motivated nomination by Governor Blagojevich, who wanted to appear to be consumer friendly to voters through Cohen's history as an advocate who has long fought the same energy providers he would be required to work with as ICC chair. Cohen came out and slammed both Democrat and Republican Senators who have received contributions from the energy lobby. If the Governor really supports Cohen, he should return the $110,000 that he received from the energy lobby. (Tribune 11/4/05)

ILL Republican newsletter 11/11 : NO COAT TAILS FOR ROD. Who knew that only three years into his administration Governor Blagojevich would have such little clout in his own party that the collection of petition signatures would be such a challenge? A Democratic precinct committeewoman from Sangamon County complained this week about the trouble she is having getting people to sign petitions for state- wide candidates. "Quite a few of the people have adamantly stated they will not sign it because Blagojevich is on there," the unidentified committeewoman said. (Journal Register 11/10/05)

· RIDING THE ETHICAL EDGE. State employees have had dual roles as it was revealed that more than four hundred parole officers were asked by the Blagojevich administration to distribute letters to community organizations advertising Rod's political accomplishments. The Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") received a similar request from the administration to use their employees to hand out letters praising the Governor for his policies for welfare recipients. DCFS employees turned down the Governor's request. The use of state employees to tout the governor's political accomplishments to the public walks a very fine ethical line. Democratic state Rep. John Fritchey agreed with the criticism, "Regardless of the legality of their actions, in this day and age having state employees undertake this kind of activity is going to unavoidably raise questions as well as cynicism." (Daily Herald 11/8/05)

more...

Posted by: Howie at 03:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

Today is Election Day and Ohio citizens will be asked to decide on five controversial statewide issues. Having reviewed each of the five issues, Interested-Participant recommends the following:

ISSUE 1 - Vote NO

- Issue 1 would allow the bureaucrats and politicians to spend $2 billion from a bond issue on roads, bridges, and R & D. I see it as another spending scam, costing the taxpayer at least $2 billion. Before voting, think about just how much more of your money you want the state to piss away.

ISSUE 2 - Vote NO

- Issue 2 is nothing more than a scheme to allow for new and innovative ways to queer the voting system. Presumably, it lets voters mail in absentee ballots for any reason up to 35 days before an election. This is ludicrous. Election Day is the day people should cast votes unless there's a good reason for having to vote absentee.

ISSUE 3 - Vote NO

- Issue 3 would amend the state constitution to delineate the dollar amounts allowed to be contributed to political candidates. Tellingly, Issue 3 contains more words than the Declaration of Independence and would be more suitable as a state law or regulation than a constitutional amendment.

That said, it's bad either way. Unions could take members' dues and give to political campaigns without consent of the member. It places restrictions on advertising, who can contribute, and when contributions are allowed. In its entirety, Issue 3 is a solid promise that near every politician and contributor will end up in noncompliance and, possibly, in court. The measure is a nightmare and it doesn't belong in the constitution.

ISSUE 4 - Vote NO

- Issue 4 would amend the Ohio Constitution to create a redistricting commission to determine legislative districts. This commission would be unelected and stuffed with political appointees. Voters would have no recourse if the commission acted inappropriately or unfairly. Essentially, redistricting would be in the hands of bureaucrats. Do we need more bureaucrats in Ohio? Bureaucrats that spend and spend and are unaccountable to the voters? I think not.

ISSUE 5 - Vote NO

- Issue 5 would change the constitution to eliminate a significant part of the Ohio Secretary of State's job. Issue 5 would create a commission of political appointees to oversee elections. Consequently, if the measure is passed, no longer will a person (Secretary of State) be responsible for the integrity of the election process. Responsibility will be with a bunch of people pointing fingers at other people. Therefore, nobody will be accountable for election problems.

Listen, when the founders of the constitution assigned responsibility, they knew what they were doing and, so far, their decisions have worked well for over a century. There's no overriding reason to restructure the constitutionally mandated government. What's next? Do we replace the governor with a commission?

Issue 1, on the other hand, is simply a tax and spend implement. No rational thinking voter would believe that the government needs more money nor more leeway on how they spend it. Anyone voting for Issue 1 should accompany his/her ballot with a power of attorney document to allow the state to confiscate all assets. Issue 1 is advertised as a "jobs" measure. Don't believe it. Issue 1 is a "spending" measure.

In conclusion, despite the fact that all of these five statewide issues are bad law, they don't belong in the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution is the upper-tier, controlling document for governing the state of Ohio. It should not be the document to dictate day-to-day operations of state agencies which is what Issues 1 through 5 do. Everyday operations of the state should be mandated in rules, laws, and regulations passed by the legislature. A state worker shouldn't have to consult the Ohio Constitution on a daily basis to do his/her job.

Remember, vote NO on State Issues 1 through 5.

Companion at I-P.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 07:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

First we have California ballot initiatives. See California Conservative.

Also tomorrow New Jersey and Virginia select Governors and NYC selects a Mayor.

This post is open to any and all NJ, Virginia, NYC or California election related posts. So fight it out boys & girls tomorrowÂ’s votinÂ’ time

Posted by: Howie at 04:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

President Bush's tax panel has released new proposals for changes to the tax code. So far, I'm not seeing anything to get excited about. Of course they've found new ways to screw the wealthy, because we all know that it's their "duty" to give everything they worked to earn back to the people who like to sit around, watch soaps and spit out babies.

Some of the proposed changes would include:

Eliminate the alternative minimum tax
The AMT is a parallel tax system originally intended to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes by eliminating many of the deductions and credits they get under the regular income tax system.

But because the income-exemption levels have never been indexed to inflation, by 2010 the AMT threatens to catch more than 30 million taxpayers, mostly from middle-income households. The estimated cost of repealing the AMT is $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

The panel was instructed to come up with proposals that are revenue-neutral, meaning they would have to produce the same revenue as expected under the current system. As a result, the panel had to take a hard look at the tax breaks offered under the current system to see where they could make up for that lost revenue, while at the same time ensuring a new tax code was fairer and more growth oriented than the current one.

So, basically, they are simply moving this tax upward in the pay scale. So once again, if you make more, they're going to take more away.

Alter homeowners' tax breaks
The panel recommended lowering the mortgage interest cap, which is the amount of a loan on which home owners would receive a tax break for interest paid, from $1 million to the average regional housing price in the range of $227,000 to $412.000.

The deduction would be converted to a credit equal to 15 percent of interest paid on mortgages up to the interest cap. A credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the taxes you owe, while a deduction only reduces your taxable income by a percentage equal to your top tax rate.

Generally speaking, the higher your mortgage loan and the higher your tax bracket, the more likely it is that you'll see less of a tax break than you would under the current system.

And once again a Socialist's dream. Tax you on your mortgage based on how much you pay and how much you make.

Reduce the marriage penalty
All tax brackets, family credits and taxation of Social Security benefits for couples would be double those of individuals. Under the current system, some married couples filing jointly end up paying more in taxes than single taxpayers with the same income because of the way various deductions, creidts and tax brackets are structured.

Now this I can get behind. But why stop there? Why not eliminate the marriage penalty altogether? If it's wrong, it's wrong. It's not just a little bit wrong, in a certain bracket.

Reduce tax breaks on employer-provided health insurance
When you work for a company, your employer typically foots a large portion of your health-insurance premiums. That money, which is not reported on your W2, is tax-free to you.

The panel recommended capping the amount of tax-free money that may be used to pay for health insurance to $5,000 for single coverage or $11,500 for family coverage.

Now hold on just a minute there, hoss. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that, but are you talking about taxing me for money that my employer pays for my health care? Or are you just talking about taxing my employer for the good thing that he's trying to do for me and my family? Either way it's a crappy deal. Kentucky politicians have already managed to make health insurance in Kentucky so high and so complicated that nearly no one will carry it. If you now start taxing the money we use to buy it, you're going to totally screw us out of health care. Small companies like the one I work for will simply not be able to afford to pay it anymore, so I'll end up losing what little I've got. How exactly again does that qualify as taking care of your constituitients? Oh, I get it now. When you do this, I'll go broke trying to pay for healthcare, and I'll be forced out of my job because my employer is broke too. Then I can take advantage of your wonderful welfare system that you've set up with the money you just stole from me and my employer! Oh wow! I can't wait!

Repeal the federal deduction of the state and local tax deductions
Under the proposals, taxpayers would no longer be allowed to deduct the state and local taxes they pay on wage income, investment income, and property.

Former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, who is the panel's vice chair, on CNBC Tuesday morning explained part of the panel's reasoning this way: "If people in California want to pay extra taxes to have their trash picked up, people in Texas shouldn't have to subsidize it."

That's right, just because your state and local governments take your money doesn't mean you don't still owe it to the federal government. After all, they've got to have their piece of the pie too.

Reduce the number of tax brackets
Under the panel's first proposal, which is a streamlined version of the current income tax, the number of tax brackets would be reduced from 6 to 4. They would be: 15%, 25%, 30% and 33%.

Under their second proposal, which combines the income tax with a progressive consumption tax, there would be only three tax brackets: 15%, 25% and 30%.

In the long run, this would probably end up screwing me. But I'd certainly like to see more on this than the proposed percentages that they want to steal from me. Where are they planning on dividing these brackets? Will most of America fall into that 25% bracket? If that's the case, then my taxes are going to go up quite a bit.

So basically, what I'm reading is that you can kiss those nice little tax breaks that Bush gave you last term goodbye. Then you can prepare yourself to bend over and take it. Because everything I'm seeing here looks like a bunch of liberal appeasement programs planned to give the goverment plenty of pork to work with.

When are the American people going to say that we've been screwed enough? When are we going to realize that the current welfare system is a sham? When are we going to demand that our "leaders" get their spending under control and stop stealing our hard earned money? I say the time is now. If we don't get this situation under control immediately, than it is going to get much worse much faster. Conservatives were able to rally together and stop the nomination of Harriet Miers, why can't we rally together and start demanding that our elected officials begin acting like the conservatives they ran as? These proposals haven't been passed into law yet. It's not to late to change them. Write your congressman. Start lobbying. Take control.

Quotes in this article courtesy CNN

Posted by: Drew at 10:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 7 kb.