Move it along, nuthin to see here...
Former Vice President, Nobel Prize winner, and crazed sex poodle Al Gore won't be prosecuted over allegations by a masseuse that he groped and assaulted her in his Portland hotel room in 2006, the county prosecutor said Friday.
District Attorney Michael Schrunk said the case has numerous problems and isn't appropriate for a criminal prosecution.
Among the difficulties that Schrunk cited: Although the red-haired masseuse said she was terrified of Gore, she also said she called him after their encounter and told him to "dream of redheaded women."
Schrunk also said the woman -- Molly Hagerty -- told the hotel she appreciated the business referrals it had given her, and didn't mention any problems with Gore just two nights earlier.
Gore denied the charges, including under questioning July 22 by local detectives. His aides welcomed the news.
"Mr. Gore unequivocally and emphatically denied this accusation when he first learned of its existence three years ago," spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said in a statement. "He respects and appreciates the thorough and professional work of the Portland authorities and is pleased that this matter has now been resolved."
#2
there never was gonna be a prosecution. I seem to remember another famous and powerful man who was accused of everything from exposing himself to trailer trash to raping a woman and telling her to "put ice on it" where he bit her. Al learned well at the foot of the master. At least they support women's right's. Most of the time
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/30/2010 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#1
The bottom line is that she knew it was bigger than her court, and no matter what she decided, it will be appealed up to the Supreme Court. So instead of deciding anything, she just identified the four issues that were contentious, so just they would be sent up the chain.
The only action she did that was averse was to put an injunction on the enforcement of these four. This was done to take it out of the public forum of protest vs. protest. Also pretty standard practice with contentious issues. Had she not done so, and the law enforced, it could have resulted in a lot of future litigation.
#2
Congress may grant concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts. That is, Congress may give the lower federal courts the right to hear the same kind of cases (e.g., cases in which a state is a party) as fall within the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction.
#3
And we have to read a Canadian site to get this info___why?
Posted by: Thruper Darling of the French2824 ||
07/30/2010 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And we have to read a Canadian site to get this info___why?
Rantburg collects articles from all over the world, Thruper Darling of the French2824, not all of them in English. Fortunately, Canadian is easy to translate.
/so much easier than from Austrian into German, for instance. Poor President Obama!
House Speaker Nancy (San Fran Nan) Pelosi is standing by her efforts to "drain the swamp" of corruption in the House as one of her Tammany hangers-on awaits word of ethics charges.
When Republicans controlled the House in 2006, Pelosi argued that Democrats should be in charge so that she could root out corruption. Asked whether New York Rep. Charlie (Yez got nuttin' on me, coppers!) Rangel's ethics problem indicate she did not succeed, Pelosi told reporters Thursday that she was referring to reforms she has since put in place to make the ethics process more independent and effective.
When the process catches her, then we'll know it works.
I'd settle for them catching anyone ...
Rangel, who has represented Harlem since the upper Paleolithic, is steeling himself for the tax and disclosure charges against him to be made public for the first time Thursday.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why would she need to "drain the swamp"? Remember, this is the most ethical Congress ever.
A House ethics subcommittee (think of a nudibranch pretending to be a vertebrate) has completed its investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Rep. Comrade Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), and could announce its next steps before lawmakers leave town for the August recess Friday, according to sources familiar with the process.
The committee is in discussions with Waters about the case, in which investigators looked at whether she broke House rules by improperly intervening with federal officials on behalf of a local bank, OneUnited Bank, that her husband owned stock in and once sat on the board of directors. It's not clear yet what would be contained in a Statement of Alleged Violations if the investigative subcommittee determines she acted improperly.
Waters has denied any wrongdoing, saying she had no influence over Bush administration officials and that she appropriately advocated on behalf of minority-owned banks.
Waters is the second prominent African-American under the ethics microscope this week. The "trial" of Rep. Charlie (Yez got nuttin' on me, coppers!) Rangel (D-N.Y.), a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, is scheduled to begin Thursday afternoon.
It is extremely rare for a lawmaker to fight ethics committee charges in front of an adjudicative subcommittee, which makes recommendations for punishment to the full House.
But, Waters could also follow that route if she is not able to reach an agreement with the ethics committee and it chooses to release a Statement of Alleged Violations against her.
The committee could also admonish her not to repeat her actions -- a move that would not bring a House action, as is required for more serious sanctions such a reprimand, censure or expulsion.
The committee could also announce it is dismissing the case, which was forwarded by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics. But sources familiar with the ethics case say that's not likely.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
allegations of wrongdoing by Rep. Comrade Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Shouldn't that read, "D-Dominican Republic"? That's where he spends much of his time. It's either that or "D-rent subsidies". The man is a charlatan and a fraud, and deserves to spend the rest of his life as a "guest" of the Federal Government.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/30/2010 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
The scandal over high salaries paid to Bell officials has city leaders throughout the state scrambling to limit the political damage. "Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs!"
City halls have seen an uptick in residents calling to find out what their local officials make ever since the story broke two weeks ago and prompted widespread public outrage.
On Thursday, city managers from across the state will gather in Sacramento to discuss damage control. Among the ideas on the table: launching an independent examination of city officials' salaries and compiling a database of salaries for municipal executives.
In the case of Laguna Hills, the students said Channing received a base salary of $233,430 but calculated his total earnings at $460,809 after including $227,379 in additional payments.
Channing strongly disputed the report, calling it "factually inaccurate and misleading" because it included what he said were reimbursements for phone bills, travel costs and other expenses
The Legislature also is mulling several Bell-inspired proposals, including a requirement that cities make salaries easily accessible on websites. Another suggestion would cap pensions of highly paid city officials, an issue that arose after The Times reported that former Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo, who earned nearly $800,000 a year, would receive roughly $600,000 a year in pension benefits once he retired.
Many of the ideas are designed to put political distance between Bell and the rest of California's 480 cities and towns. "It would be really unfortunate if anyone took the outrageous action of one city and generalized it to all cities," said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, which is hosting the meeting.
The stories of soaring salaries come at a difficult time for cities, which are making cutbacks amid a recession that has made many taxpayers ever more interested in what services they get for their tax dollars.
In Sacramento, the Bell salary controversy threatens to undermine the arguments made by city managers against state budget proposals that would take money away from municipalities. For months, city officials have lobbied the Legislature, arguing that they are suffering financially because of the economic slump and cannot afford deeper cuts.
"However, the Times story suggests this duress may not apply to all our cities, or that some cities are not allowing their economic plight to curtail Fortune 500-level salaries for their senior executives,'' State Senate President Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) wrote in a pointed letter to the League of Cities last week.
At a time of low public confidence in government, the Bell revelations pose another threat to the credibility of local officials.
"It just makes for a toxic environment," said Max Neiman, senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.
City clerks, human resource directors and finance officers said they have been processing an influx of public records requests for public officials' salary figures since the revelations of the salary paid to Rizzo as well as Bell's police chief, who made $457,000, and the assistant city manager, who made $376,000.
Officials have found themselves repeating the mantra, "We're not Bell," to concerned residents.
Figuring out exactly how much top city leaders make can be difficult, however. The base salary of city officials is usually the most easily accessible number, but it rarely captures the total compensation. City leaders also can be paid through car and phone allowances, housing agreements or deferred compensation plans. In some cases, city managers can receive a separate salary by holding a different position or serving on a board or commission.
Those extras can significantly boost total compensation, but they are difficult to sort out.
Take the case of Laguna Hills. Barbara Kogerman, who ran for City Council in the Orange County suburb, sought the assistance of three local graduate students to figure out how much City Manager Bruce Channing earned and how his pay compared to that of other Orange County city managers.
Collecting the information was difficult, in part because each city offered data in a unique format, the students said.
In the case of Laguna Hills, the students said Channing received a base salary of $233,430 but calculated his total earnings at $460,809 after including $227,379 in additional payments.
Channing strongly disputed the report, calling it "factually inaccurate and misleading" because it included what he said were reimbursements for phone bills, travel costs and other expenses.
"What it costs an organization to equip an individual to perform their duties is not the same as the salary that the individual is paid," Channing said.
Show us your 1040, W-2s and 1099s then ...
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How about $30K a year for 10 years as penance!
Sort of cushion all the fat you stole!
#2
I wonder what the budget looks like for this city of some 36000 people (2000 census)? There are a little more than 8000 households. The tax burden on families for paying these yahoos is a political shakedown of the taxpayers. So why have the taxpayers not done anything about this situation? Only 400 voters turned out for an election concerning the city charter. How may illegals are living in Bell?
Possibly cornered Rep. Charlie Rangel dragged out negotiations over his pending ethics "trial" to the bitter end yesterday - leaving many fellow wardheelers irate.
With a dramatic ethics panel meeting set to air charges against Rangel at 1 p.m. today, he was still trying to find a way last night to admit he did wrong, without saying he did it on purpose, sources said.
Rangel's mindset was so far removed from his increasingly worried colleagues' perspective that until recently he even dreamed of recapturing the Boodle Central chairmanship he was forced to give up last spring.
"If he were to be cleared, then it might have been possible, even in a lame duck session after the elections, to get it back," a source said, noting that Rangel always said giving up his gavel was temporary.
First in his mind is demonstrating that he did not deliberately cheat on taxes, hide assets or rent himself out for less than the going rate for donations to City College's planned Rangel Center, the source said.
The difficulty of exonerating himself finally hit home in recent days.
"It took him a while to realize that this [battle] was about remaining a member [of Congress]," said a House Democratic leadership source, "[and] to accept that he won't be the chairman again."
Rangel's friends maintain his biggest fear is that at 80, his remarkable career will end with a tarnished legacy if he admits he intentionally broke House rules.
He also believes some of the pressure comes from Democrats who want to prove they're better than Republicans at dealing with ethical lapses before the elections.
Sources said House Speaker Nancy (San Fran Nan) Pelosi is still in Rangel's corner emotionally, but wants him to cop a plea.
Pelosi's righthand man, Majority Leader Steny (I never said I was gonna drain the swamp!) Hoyer (D-Md.), sounded less patient, frostily telling reporters, "Mr. Rangel needs to do what he thinks is best."
A GOP source said that if there is a deal to avoid a trial "our guys [on the committee] are going to drive a hard bargain. They've lost patience. They're digging in their heels."
Some Democrats have called on him to resign, and privately, even some nominally in his corner can't understand how his case has been so drawn out, since charges emerged two years ago.
One New York House Democrat grumbled that Rangel has spent more than $1.5million on legal fees in a protracted battle that might fizzle out with an apology and a reprimand.
"A million-and-a-half just to say 'I'm sorry?' C'mon, I would've said I'm sorry two years ago," the member said with a laugh.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
first of many once Issa gets in as Chair. Let the hearings begin!
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/30/2010 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Better check that "right hand", Nancy - I think there's a knife in it.
#3
"And he'll-- he's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that-- what he wants is to be able to-- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that-- it happens. "
President Obama is no stranger to having unexpected guests "crash" his White House parties, but he'll have to do just that if he wants to attend Chelsea Clinton's wedding this weekend.
The president announced on ABC's "The View" Wednesday that he wasn't given an invitation to the wedding of the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"I was not invited to the wedding because I think Hillary and Bill, properly, want to keep this thing for Chelsea and her soon-to-be husband," the president said.
He did joke to the ladies of "The View," though, "You don't want two presidents at one wedding. All the secret service, guests going through [metal detectors], all the gifts being torn apart."
Clinton, 30, will wed investment banker Marc Mezvinsky on Saturday in Rhinebeck, New York, at Astor Courts, a secluded estate along the Hudson River built as a Beaux Arts style playground for John Jacob Astor IV more than a century ago. The estate features the sort of commanding view that once inspired Hudson River School painters, as well as 50 acres of buffer space to shield the party from prying eyes.
A number of shops posted signs like "Congratulations Marc and Chelsea." One shop posted pictures of the Clintons, and a sign on a cosmetics store read: "Oprah! Please make my soap one of your favorite things." (Winfrey was reportedly invited.)
The Hudson Valley News reports that other people that might attend the wedding are Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Ted Turner, former Clinton adviser Harold Ickes and former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
Former Vice President, Nobel Prize winner, and crazed sex poodle Al Gore will not be attending, according to the New York Daily News.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obama's in good company. I wasn't invited either.
#3
I'm glad I wasn't invited. I don't have a dress Hawaiian Shirt.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/30/2010 7:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"I was not invited to the wedding because I think Hillary and Bill, properly, want to keep this thing for Chelsea and her soon-to-be husband," the president said.
In other words, it wasn't going to be all about him. What a twat.
#11
Considering that Hillary is supposedly still asking people to help pay off her campaign debts, where is the cash coming from?
I can see Bill making calls: "Don't disappoint Hillary. Believe me, you don't to see her mad at you"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/30/2010 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Of course they didn't invite Obama. The other guests would all assume that he was a waiter, since that is what all the other black people there are doing.
#13
Is it just me, or does anybody else think she bears a very strong resemblance to Popeye's Goil, Olive Oyl, .
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/30/2010 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Beside, were he there, he may start trying to kill flie bare handed while smugly giving long winded vocalized pause ridden diatribes. His skivvie clad victory dance at winning presidency is better for Michele's eyes only. Hillary has the good sense not to kiss that ass.
#18
I used to live in Dutchess County where the wedding is. I am so glad I don't live there anymore. A presidential visit shuts down the adjacent three counties. And with all the other elites coming in, no one will be able to move.
Compare this to when W's daughter got married.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/30/2010 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday brought back furloughs for thousands of state workers until California passes a budget that addresses a $19 billion deficit.
Schwarzenegger released a new executive order requiring state workers to take three unpaid days off per month starting in August. State workers were furloughed a total of 46 days when Schwarzenegger issued a similar order in February 2009, which translated to a pay cut of about 14 percent.
Those furloughs just ended in June.
It's unclear how long the latest round of furloughs could last, as Schwarzenegger and lawmakers enter the fifth week of the new fiscal year without a balanced budget. Earlier this week, the governor hinted that he might not sign a budget before he leaves office next January unless it includes pension, tax and spending reforms.
"Without a budget in place that addresses our $19 billion budget deficit, every day of delay brings California closer to a fiscal meltdown," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "Our cash situation leaves me no choice but to once again furlough state workers until the Legislature produces a budget I can sign."
State Controller John Chiang has warned he will start issuing IOUs in August or September if the budget stalemate drags on in the Legislature. Chiang said the cash-saving measure is necessary because the state is projected to run out of cash in October.
The new order exempts employees who work for departments that collect revenue, such as the Franchise Tax Board, and public safety agencies, including the California Highway Patrol.
It also exempts about 37,000 workers in six unions that recently reached tentative labor agreements with the administration. Those unions agreed for their members to contribute more of their salaries toward their pension benefits and to take one day of unpaid personal leave a month, the equivalent of a nearly 5 percent pay cut.
The state has about 237,000 workers.
The furlough puts pressure on remaining unions that have not agreed to the governor's demands for pension changes.
Schwarzenegger's last furlough order triggered more than two dozen lawsuits, but the administration said the furloughs achieved about $1 billion in general fund savings and $2.2 billion in overall savings during the state's last budget crisis.
Unions also have been fighting the governor's efforts to impose the federal minimum wage $7.25 per hour while the state operates without a budget.
"To once again force state employees to take unpaid furloughs is just another punitive measure by Gov. Schwarzenegger because he couldn't impose minimum wage," said Patty Velez, president of the California Association of Professional Scientists, which represents 3,000 state employees.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the B.O. regime is considering using a back door to stop deporting many undocumented Democrats - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."
The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to "reduce the threat of removal" for many undocumented Democrats who have run afoul of immigration authorities.
"In the absence of general amnesty, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear," the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.
The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many undocumented Democrats in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize undocumented Democrats.
Chris Bentley, a USCIS front man, said drafting the memo doesn't mean the agency has embraced the policy and "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."
"As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system," he said in an e-mail statement. "We continue to maintain that something that puts blame on everybody, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's flood of illegals."
He said the Homeland Security Department "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire undocumented Democrat population."
The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of undocumented Democrats.
Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying rule by decree.
"This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan," Mr. Grassley said.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 09:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They talk amnesty and citizenship because they want Hispanic votes and are afraid to talk about Guest Worker programs for fear of upsetting the Unions.
Give Hispanics the option to travel to the US safe, remove the drugs and criminals from the mix, ensure safe working conditions and proper taxation and eliminate the race-based underclass with an intelligent Guest Worker program and you'll win over the legal Hispanics. Yes some things will go up in price but that is the price we pay for doing the right thing.
#2
the fallacy that legal labor will dramatically drive up costs is total BS. the most common example is that produce will skyrocket. hooey. the cost of produce is %85 fuel and other petroleum based products and less than %10 labor. start with a $1 head of lettuce. double the labor and it is only $1.10. triple labor costs and it is $1.20. now just raise oil and energy costs by %70 (cap and trade) and that lettuce is $1.60
Posted by: abu do you love ||
07/30/2010 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system,"
Great! Where can I get a copy of the memo detailing how they are going to get rid of all the undocumented Democrats?
According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact "general amnesty absent legislative action" -- that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
"This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization," it reads.
Also: "In the absence of general amnesty, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements."
In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. "Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate," a Grassley front man tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a front man did not have a comment on the record.)
Many of the memo's proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for "unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities." It also proposes extending the "grace period" H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they're expected to leave the country.
With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to "Increase the Use of Deferred Action." "Deferred action," as the memo defines it, "is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time." For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove undocumented Democrats who'd been affected by the disaster.
The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS's ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be "controversial, not to mention expensive." The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt "particular groups" from removal -- such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover "an estimated 50,000" individuals, though as many as 65,000 undocumented Democrats graduate high school every year in the U.S.
In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy -- and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation's de facto amnesty.
#3
Some times I think our worthless, treasoness leader only studies Constitutional law so that he could find ways to circumvent it and destroy this nation.
#4
I see a campaign issue that will resonante with Americans. Democrats need this thrust in their face in every debate, in ads all over the country. It's unAmerican and not compatible with our Republic form of government. Napolitano should disavow it or be publicly forced from office. That tidal wave keeps getting bigger
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/30/2010 7:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The threat to our Constitution is clearly from within. This political class views the Constitution as a hinderence to their socialist elitist agenda. With the supreme court gone to the left there is nothing short of a revolution to stop him now. Lets remain vigilant through this election and start to nthrow the bums out. This has taken the boomer socialist party 40 years to tear down, it will take just as long to fix.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/30/2010 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They are asking for gunfire.
Posted by: No I am The Other Beldar ||
07/30/2010 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Ine wonders if they are this f**cking stupid, this arrogant, or if they want violence? This will not stand, and widespread violence will follow immediately if they do this.
I think the left has seriously underestimated the boiling point of the American center and right!
#9
Should they attempt to do this, it is the assertion of Imperial powers, wherein this President presumes no checks against his power and asserts his perogative to act againt not only the will of the American people, but against the law itself.
Our last interaction with an Imperial presence on these shores does not bode will for this.
House Majority Leader Steny (I never said I was gonna drain the swamp!) Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Wednesday that the expiration built into the Bush tax cuts is a "Republican tax increase" for "working Americans" and the Democrats have "no intention" of allowing it to go into effect.
"We have no intention of allowing the Republican tax increase -- that their policies would lead to -- to go into effect for working Americans. Period," he said. "We're going to act and make sure that the Republican phase out and increase in taxes does not end as they provided for in the laws they passed."
Hoyer's press secretary told CNSNews.com in an e-mail that the Democratic Majority Leader was referring to the "middle class" when he said "working Americans."
Hoyer also said at the press conference, "If we left the Republican policies in place, their [working Americans] taxes would be increased next year. We're not going to let that happen."
Hoyer spoke at a "Make It In America" press conference where analysts spoke about ways the federal government could encourage manufacturing in America, particularly for small- and medium-size energy companies.
When asked if allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire could hinder manufacturing in the United States, Hoyer said that raising taxes on upper-income Americans will not hurt the economy. "No, no! Certainly not! Who y'gonna believe? Me? Or experience?"
"The level of taxation on upper-income Americans that was in place in 1994 through 2001 did not inhibit the creation of the most jobs of any administration in my service in Congress," he said. "It did not inhibit the creation of surpluses in our economy -- did not inhibit the extraordinary growth in the net worth of America in the stock markets." The was also the wake of the end of the Cold War, when R&D resources and skilled manpower that had gone into defense were suddenly looking for other things to do. Same thing happened after the end of WWII and the Korean War. And WWI. And the Civil War...
"My belief is -- and I don't want to speak for anybody here -- but my belief is we want to keep working Americans, with the income they now have, without increasing their taxes -- again, if we had left the Republican policies in place -- their taxes [middle class] would be increased next year," said Hoyer. "We're not going to let that happen."
He added, "With respect to upper-income folks, we believe that the tax rate at the rate they were paying when our economy was growing very quickly -- and they were doing very well -- will not in any way harm the economy."
According to the News Agency that Dare Not be Named, Senate Finance Committee Democrats proposed last week to allow the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy to expire next year while permanently extending the middle-class tax cuts."
UPI reported that House Speaker Nancy (San Fran Nan) Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said that House Democrats plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class but not for the wealthy.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the B.O. regime is currently encouraging Congress to continue the Bush tax cuts for individuals making under $250,000 a year and to raise taxes on those with income above that amount.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 12:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
War is peace! Hate is love! Stupidity is intelligence!
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.
Currently, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born within the United States.
But with 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, Graham said it may be time to restrict the ability of immigrants to have children who become citizens just because they are born within the country.
"I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here," Graham said during an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."
Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: "I got to."
"People come here to have babies," he said. "They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave." To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a smokescreen - there's just no way this jackwagon is serious about any aspect of border security whatsoever. He's not called "Lindsay Grahamnesty" for nothing, folks. He's trying to help his fellow open-borders stooges reinforce the meme of Immigration Enforcement = Raaaaacism. Does he really think we're ready to forget and forgive THIS?
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
07/30/2010 1:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In the mean team, illegals can continue to use our public school sports fields (free of charge) for evening and week end soccer recreation while relieving themselves,defecating in the bushes along the school fences, and leaving their bottled water containers and trash everywhere. No, it's NOT Arizona. Welcome to Fairfax County Virginia.
#4
is this not the same shitball that has stated support for Kagan on the supreme court and voted across the aisle over and over again whenever the chips are down? anyone remember the infamous "gang of 14" that killed dozens of Bush appointees? he is not just RINO he is invertebrate RINO.
the only times he ever speaks conservative is when it is free for him: either already has a majority in the 'yes' column so he can bandwagon on it, or when he knows it will never happen but will sell well with the rubes back home. ignore his words, see the acts...
smoke screen indeed.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
07/30/2010 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
#4 is this not the same shitball that has stated support for Kagan on the supreme court and voted across the aisle over and over again whenever the chips are down? anyone remember the infamous "gang of 14" that killed dozens of Bush appointees? he is not just RINO he is invertebrate RINO.
#6
Lindsey-gal Goober, what with being a single, childless JAG RINO fellah and all that; can be trusted to look out for our collective best interests, don-cha- know. Hes hot!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The scandal over high salaries paid to Bell officials has city leaders throughout the state scrambling to limit the political damage.
President Obama is no stranger to having unexpected guests "crash" his White House parties, but he'll have to do just that if he wants to attend Chelsea Clinton's wedding this weekend.
House Majority Leader 
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.
