As you may have noticed, there are ads on this website. I do not choose them,and I have no idea how they are chosen and placed. However, upon occasion, I see ads for Chris Dodd's re-election campaign. Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not endorse Chris Dodd for Senate. I do call and hope for the people of Connecticut to retire Chris Dodd in November, 2010.
I do not choose nor do I endorse any candidate at this time.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Laugh of the Day
During today's Meet the Press, there was, at least to me, a very amusing moment. The panel was discussing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference earlier this past week (Wednesday, May 13, I believe) in which she gave a less than admirable and rather rambling performance. Peggy Noonan made the following comment regarding that press conference: "Dazed and confused is a bad way for a speaker of the House to look." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30755466/page/6/ To me, it was not only an appropriate comment, given the behavior during the press conference, but it was so amusing as, to me, it was so reminiscent of a famous line from a well-known movie: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." So said Dean Wormer in Animal House.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Where have the public servants gone?
A long time ago, in a land comprised of colonies that had just thrown off the tyranny of an oppressive government that provided the colonies with no representation, a group of very intelligent people came together and put together a new form of government. These men were not career politicians - they were public servants in the true sense of the word.
Flash forward 220 plus years, and you have to ask: "Where have all the public servants gone?" At some point, this country started electing politicians who served only two masters - themselves and their political party. The voters, the people, were forgotten, except at election time. Apparently, many elected officials have come to conclusion that public service is not about serving the public, but, rather, is "all about me".
Today, in an appalling but enlightening interview on Meet the Press, Senator Arlen Specter acknowledged that he switched his party affiliation based on his re-election concerns for 2010. Apparently polling and other information (not detailed) told him that he stood a better chance at re-election if he ran as a Democrat and not as a Republican. "Well, well, since that time [early April, 2009] I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/
To me, this is wrong on so many levels. First, when he last ran for office as a Republican, the Senator formed a contract with the voters, in essence saying "this is who I am, a Republican, and this is what I stand for, so vote for me. If you vote for me, this is what you will get." The people voted for him, and before his term is through, he decides to change his mind about who he is, what he stands for and how he will represent the people who elected him. I believe that people can and should change their minds as situations may warrant; however, I believe they should also do the honorable thing. If you change your party affiliation mid-term, step down and cause a special election to be called. Then, if you wish to remain in office, run as a member of your new party, and let the people decide if they wish to make a new contract with you and vote for you. Otherwise, you retain your office wrongfully, having broken your contract with the people who elected you.
Second, when David Gregory asked him whether he would be retaining his seniority and other Senate perks after switching affiliations, the Senator imperiously declared that he "earned" such "entitlements" with his seniority. "Entitlements" and "entitled" are two words that define some of the biggest problems with our elected officials. We the people need to remind our elected officials that they serve at the will of the people and are "entitled" to nothing, other than an acknowledgment of a job well done, if applicable, after their term is finished.
This sense of entitlement is why our elected officials have health care when a large number of Americans do not; why they have the best health care in the world, while Americans lack access to the same; why they vote themselves automatic raises without requesting such raises from the taxpayers who much pay for such raises. The claim of entitlement asserted by the Senator only strengthens the image Americans have of our Congress as the fox guarding the chicken coop.
The Senator also claimed to have fought to strengthen the Republican Party and yet, without completing such battle, he abandons it for the Democratic Party in order to better his re-election chances. It's difficult for me to respect decisions like that.
At 79 years old, it is time for the Senator to retire. I would hope that the people of Pennsylvania will see this and will retire him, no matter which party they vote for in 2010. Please, do not send Senator Specter back - he admitted today that he bases decisions on approval ratings and whether he can be re-elected and on the apparently all-important entitlements he can get. I didn't hear much, if anything, about his concern for his constituents. Please retire him and send a true public servant to the Senate - someone who puts the people of the United States of America above all else, including him/herself and the party.
Flash forward 220 plus years, and you have to ask: "Where have all the public servants gone?" At some point, this country started electing politicians who served only two masters - themselves and their political party. The voters, the people, were forgotten, except at election time. Apparently, many elected officials have come to conclusion that public service is not about serving the public, but, rather, is "all about me".
Today, in an appalling but enlightening interview on Meet the Press, Senator Arlen Specter acknowledged that he switched his party affiliation based on his re-election concerns for 2010. Apparently polling and other information (not detailed) told him that he stood a better chance at re-election if he ran as a Democrat and not as a Republican. "Well, well, since that time [early April, 2009] I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/
To me, this is wrong on so many levels. First, when he last ran for office as a Republican, the Senator formed a contract with the voters, in essence saying "this is who I am, a Republican, and this is what I stand for, so vote for me. If you vote for me, this is what you will get." The people voted for him, and before his term is through, he decides to change his mind about who he is, what he stands for and how he will represent the people who elected him. I believe that people can and should change their minds as situations may warrant; however, I believe they should also do the honorable thing. If you change your party affiliation mid-term, step down and cause a special election to be called. Then, if you wish to remain in office, run as a member of your new party, and let the people decide if they wish to make a new contract with you and vote for you. Otherwise, you retain your office wrongfully, having broken your contract with the people who elected you.
Second, when David Gregory asked him whether he would be retaining his seniority and other Senate perks after switching affiliations, the Senator imperiously declared that he "earned" such "entitlements" with his seniority. "Entitlements" and "entitled" are two words that define some of the biggest problems with our elected officials. We the people need to remind our elected officials that they serve at the will of the people and are "entitled" to nothing, other than an acknowledgment of a job well done, if applicable, after their term is finished.
This sense of entitlement is why our elected officials have health care when a large number of Americans do not; why they have the best health care in the world, while Americans lack access to the same; why they vote themselves automatic raises without requesting such raises from the taxpayers who much pay for such raises. The claim of entitlement asserted by the Senator only strengthens the image Americans have of our Congress as the fox guarding the chicken coop.
The Senator also claimed to have fought to strengthen the Republican Party and yet, without completing such battle, he abandons it for the Democratic Party in order to better his re-election chances. It's difficult for me to respect decisions like that.
At 79 years old, it is time for the Senator to retire. I would hope that the people of Pennsylvania will see this and will retire him, no matter which party they vote for in 2010. Please, do not send Senator Specter back - he admitted today that he bases decisions on approval ratings and whether he can be re-elected and on the apparently all-important entitlements he can get. I didn't hear much, if anything, about his concern for his constituents. Please retire him and send a true public servant to the Senate - someone who puts the people of the United States of America above all else, including him/herself and the party.
Monday, April 27, 2009
So long Pontiac.
As a long-time Pontiac owner (almost 20 years), this morning I sadly awoke to see the news - General Motors, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to kill off the Pontiac brand of cars. After the past year(s) of destroying the value of its shares, and the lives of its stockholders, employees and retirees (I know some would argue that the employees/unions contributed to the problem, but I am not going to address that for two reasons - I won't "kick 'em when they are down", and I believe overpaid management/executives to be a bigger problem), I can't say that I am surprised. I am disappointed, however.
And puzzled as well. Why Pontiac? Why not Buick (it just seems incredulous that it is more profitable to stay with Buick). Why not GMC - it's made on the same platform as Chevy trucks, or so I am told, and larger vehicles are so passe these days (e.g. too expensive to purchase, to operate, to maintain, and bad for the environment).
CEO Fritz Henderson reportedly said at a news conference today, supposedly in reference to discontinuing Pontiac: "We only want to do this once." If that's the case, Fritz, you can't kill Pontiac - because GM already did "this" once - when GM killed off Oldsmobile in 2004.
My spouse has been a long, long-time Ford fan. And, from the past year or so, I have come to agree that it's time for me to check out Fords again. Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of the Ford Motor Company, has impressed me with his television appearances. I've also been impressed by the fact that, although Ford Motor Company did not need or ask for Federal funds, the company traveled to Washington in support of its beleagured competitors. FMC has managed to more than stay afloat, and to avoid asking for government bailouts, and to keep its customers loyal and happy, all with minimal layoffs (compared to GM).
So, General Motors, as you unceremoniously kill off Pontiac and force me to say good-bye to my favorite cars, I will tell you this: Say good-bye to me as a customer. I've put up with a lot from GM over the years, but, killing off Pontiac is the last straw. When I go shopping for my next new car, GM will not be on my list. Ford Motor Company, however, if it continues on its path through this economic slump with as much integrity and grace as it already has shown, will be on the top of my list.
And puzzled as well. Why Pontiac? Why not Buick (it just seems incredulous that it is more profitable to stay with Buick). Why not GMC - it's made on the same platform as Chevy trucks, or so I am told, and larger vehicles are so passe these days (e.g. too expensive to purchase, to operate, to maintain, and bad for the environment).
CEO Fritz Henderson reportedly said at a news conference today, supposedly in reference to discontinuing Pontiac: "We only want to do this once." If that's the case, Fritz, you can't kill Pontiac - because GM already did "this" once - when GM killed off Oldsmobile in 2004.
My spouse has been a long, long-time Ford fan. And, from the past year or so, I have come to agree that it's time for me to check out Fords again. Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of the Ford Motor Company, has impressed me with his television appearances. I've also been impressed by the fact that, although Ford Motor Company did not need or ask for Federal funds, the company traveled to Washington in support of its beleagured competitors. FMC has managed to more than stay afloat, and to avoid asking for government bailouts, and to keep its customers loyal and happy, all with minimal layoffs (compared to GM).
So, General Motors, as you unceremoniously kill off Pontiac and force me to say good-bye to my favorite cars, I will tell you this: Say good-bye to me as a customer. I've put up with a lot from GM over the years, but, killing off Pontiac is the last straw. When I go shopping for my next new car, GM will not be on my list. Ford Motor Company, however, if it continues on its path through this economic slump with as much integrity and grace as it already has shown, will be on the top of my list.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Support for term limits.
Here in Connecticut we have the quintessential evidence for term limits. Christopher Dodd was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1981. His latest term expires in 2010. While I am sure much can be said about his prior terms, it's this last term that truly make the point for term limits.
Some of the major faux pas committed by the Senator who is supposed to be representing the people of Connecticut include the following:
1) Changing his residency from Connecticut to Iowa during the course of, in my opinion, his incredibly narcissistic and pointless run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. Changing his residency to another state should have required his resignation as Senator from Connecticut. Connecticut needs to change its laws in this respect (and also grant its citizens the right of recall, but that is a topic for another day) so that another Senator does not pull such a disrespectful stunt.
2) The "sweetheart" mortgage rate he obtained from Countrywide at a time when others were getting no such "deals".
3) Dodd's re-election campaign accepting $162,100 from AIG employees and their spouses after he sent out an email in November, 2006 requesting support for his re-election campaign. Ultimately, Dodd accepted $238,418 from AIG employees and their spouses. "http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/dodd_aig_contributions/2009/03/30/197552.html
4) Dodd adding a provision into legislation in February, 2009, which ultimately resulted in the allowance of $218 million in bonuses to be paid to AIG executives, after AIG had already received billions of dollars of taxpayer money from TARP. Note: AIG received another 29.8 Billion dollars of taxpayer money yesterday, April 21, 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97N4P580.htm
As head of the Senate Banking Committee, I have to ask, where was Senator Dodd while the financial and insurance industries were heading into a, and actually beginning to, melt-down? I know he wasn't asnwering my questions during that time.
I certainly don't understand why it consistently takes his office nine months to respond to my written concerns with a form letter that makes so little effort to address the issues raised, it's clear no one in the office truly reads what a constituent writes. By the time the nine months go by, usually no action can be taken on the issue. Perhaps that's the Senator's plan. I can say, however, that Senator Lieberman's office is very quick to respond with it's own vague and generally unresponsive form letters - usually within a matter of days.
On April 17, 2009, the News Times published a story indicating that for the first quarter of 2009, Dodd raised, $4,250 from just FIVE Connecticut residents. Dodd also accepted $604,745 from almost 400 individuals not living in Connecticut. http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12159339?IADID=Search-www.newstimes.com-www.newstimes.com To me, this simple story speaks volumes. It tells me that the people of Connecticut have withdrawn their support from the Senator; that the Senator is making little effort with the people of Connecticut; and that the Senator continues to prefer to deal with people and interests outside the state.
Needless to say, Senator Dodd has done nothing this past term to earn my vote, nor will he get it. I respectfully suggest that, if he wishes to return to the Senate, he return to Iowa and run there. Perhaps he can garner more than 60 votes there this time. http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results.aspx?sp=ia@oi=p&rti=e
As far as I am concerned, it's time to impose term limits on Senator Dodd.
Some of the major faux pas committed by the Senator who is supposed to be representing the people of Connecticut include the following:
1) Changing his residency from Connecticut to Iowa during the course of, in my opinion, his incredibly narcissistic and pointless run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. Changing his residency to another state should have required his resignation as Senator from Connecticut. Connecticut needs to change its laws in this respect (and also grant its citizens the right of recall, but that is a topic for another day) so that another Senator does not pull such a disrespectful stunt.
2) The "sweetheart" mortgage rate he obtained from Countrywide at a time when others were getting no such "deals".
3) Dodd's re-election campaign accepting $162,100 from AIG employees and their spouses after he sent out an email in November, 2006 requesting support for his re-election campaign. Ultimately, Dodd accepted $238,418 from AIG employees and their spouses. "http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/dodd_aig_contributions/2009/03/30/197552.html
4) Dodd adding a provision into legislation in February, 2009, which ultimately resulted in the allowance of $218 million in bonuses to be paid to AIG executives, after AIG had already received billions of dollars of taxpayer money from TARP. Note: AIG received another 29.8 Billion dollars of taxpayer money yesterday, April 21, 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97N4P580.htm
As head of the Senate Banking Committee, I have to ask, where was Senator Dodd while the financial and insurance industries were heading into a, and actually beginning to, melt-down? I know he wasn't asnwering my questions during that time.
I certainly don't understand why it consistently takes his office nine months to respond to my written concerns with a form letter that makes so little effort to address the issues raised, it's clear no one in the office truly reads what a constituent writes. By the time the nine months go by, usually no action can be taken on the issue. Perhaps that's the Senator's plan. I can say, however, that Senator Lieberman's office is very quick to respond with it's own vague and generally unresponsive form letters - usually within a matter of days.
On April 17, 2009, the News Times published a story indicating that for the first quarter of 2009, Dodd raised, $4,250 from just FIVE Connecticut residents. Dodd also accepted $604,745 from almost 400 individuals not living in Connecticut. http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12159339?IADID=Search-www.newstimes.com-www.newstimes.com To me, this simple story speaks volumes. It tells me that the people of Connecticut have withdrawn their support from the Senator; that the Senator is making little effort with the people of Connecticut; and that the Senator continues to prefer to deal with people and interests outside the state.
Needless to say, Senator Dodd has done nothing this past term to earn my vote, nor will he get it. I respectfully suggest that, if he wishes to return to the Senate, he return to Iowa and run there. Perhaps he can garner more than 60 votes there this time. http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results.aspx?sp=ia@oi=p&rti=e
As far as I am concerned, it's time to impose term limits on Senator Dodd.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Parties
As an Independent voter, I am quite baffled and bemused by the media’s attempt to label the Tax Day Tea Parties as a Republican or conservative event. I attended an event held in at the Dutchess Stadium (seats approximately 4,300 people) in Fishkill, NY. According to MidHudson News, almost 4,000 people attended. The Poughkeepsie Journal indicated that the stadium was “almost full”. http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090415/NEWS01/90415036 We were backed up on Interstate 84 for a couple of miles just trying to get to the event, and we had planned to arrive early. There were definitely independent voters attending, as well as Republicans, and, I believe, quite a few democrats. It was an interesting evening and program marked by a refreshing absence of name-calling and vicious personal attacks.
My purpose in attending was to protest the totally out of control spending going on right now, including the never-ending so-called “stimulus” and bailouts. These spending programs totaling trillions of dollars must be paid for. Although the President has promised a tax cut for those earning $250,000 or less per year, I believe that this is a temporary promise. These stimulus and bailout “chickens” will be coming home to roost, and all taxpayers will ultimately be called upon to pay for them with higher taxes.
Remember, politicians make promises and have no problem breaking them. In Connecticut, in 1990, as I recall, Lowell Weicker, Jr. ran for Governor and was elected, in my opinion, partially on his promise to solve the fiscal crisis in Connecticut without implementing a state income tax. However, shortly after taking office, Weicker became a staunch advocate of a state income tax, and even vetoed the General Assembly’s measure repealing the tax. Thus, today, Connecticut residents are subject to a state income tax thanks to a political candidate who, during his campaign, promised no state income tax.
The point is, at best, politicians change their minds; at worst, they tell the electorate what it wants to hear just to get into office.
My purpose in attending was to protest the totally out of control spending going on right now, including the never-ending so-called “stimulus” and bailouts. These spending programs totaling trillions of dollars must be paid for. Although the President has promised a tax cut for those earning $250,000 or less per year, I believe that this is a temporary promise. These stimulus and bailout “chickens” will be coming home to roost, and all taxpayers will ultimately be called upon to pay for them with higher taxes.
Remember, politicians make promises and have no problem breaking them. In Connecticut, in 1990, as I recall, Lowell Weicker, Jr. ran for Governor and was elected, in my opinion, partially on his promise to solve the fiscal crisis in Connecticut without implementing a state income tax. However, shortly after taking office, Weicker became a staunch advocate of a state income tax, and even vetoed the General Assembly’s measure repealing the tax. Thus, today, Connecticut residents are subject to a state income tax thanks to a political candidate who, during his campaign, promised no state income tax.
The point is, at best, politicians change their minds; at worst, they tell the electorate what it wants to hear just to get into office.
Eventually, each one of us will be paying for these bailouts, stimulus and other out of control spending plans (including studies regarding pig odors) with our own hard-earned tax dollars.
My favorite photo from the Fishkill event is above. As a graduate of the same college from which Mr. Geithner graduated, I was appalled and ashamed that Mr. Geithner would appear to place the blame for his failure to properly report and pay his taxes for four years on money he earned as a consultant on Turbo Tax. I’ve used Turbo Tax for years to do my taxes, and I have had no problem reporting the income I earned as a consultant/independent contractor. Not only has Turbo Tax prompted me for such income, I had the personal responsibility to keep track of my income in order to report it and pay taxes on it.
I am not a fan of “the dog ate my homework” type of excuse for personal failure. Ultimately, it is the taxpayer's personal responsibility to keep track of his or her income, to report it accurately, and to pay taxes on it.
My favorite photo from the Fishkill event is above. As a graduate of the same college from which Mr. Geithner graduated, I was appalled and ashamed that Mr. Geithner would appear to place the blame for his failure to properly report and pay his taxes for four years on money he earned as a consultant on Turbo Tax. I’ve used Turbo Tax for years to do my taxes, and I have had no problem reporting the income I earned as a consultant/independent contractor. Not only has Turbo Tax prompted me for such income, I had the personal responsibility to keep track of my income in order to report it and pay taxes on it.
I am not a fan of “the dog ate my homework” type of excuse for personal failure. Ultimately, it is the taxpayer's personal responsibility to keep track of his or her income, to report it accurately, and to pay taxes on it.
Welcome!
Thanks for checking out my page. I've decided, after sending numerous letters to my elected representatives only to receive back form letters that, at best, only tangentially discuss my concerns, and, at worst, indicate that the elected official and/or his (all my elected federal officials are male) staff fail to even comprehend the topic at hand, that it was time to voice my opinions a bit more publicly.
Remember, everything I write is an expression of my opinion.
I welcome comments and responses, but there will be simple rules. We will agree to disagree respectfully, and any posts that frame a personal attack or use vulgarity will not be posted. I thank you for your consideration in this regard. I look forward to a civil and intelligent discussion.
Remember, everything I write is an expression of my opinion.
I welcome comments and responses, but there will be simple rules. We will agree to disagree respectfully, and any posts that frame a personal attack or use vulgarity will not be posted. I thank you for your consideration in this regard. I look forward to a civil and intelligent discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)