This'n'That; April 2nd[BarneyFrank;WoundedCop]

Barney's "Nose" Under Public "Tent"

[Barney Frank, the democRAT from Taxachusetts, is now acting like the the "camel with his nose under the tent flap." He's realized through the House's egregious attempt to single out a particular segment of society to confiscate monies legally paid to them that if the Congress pushes hard enough-long enough, they can pass anything-consitutional, or not!! Now that the socialist segment of the Congress has a leader in Fluffy obama, there'll be no end to their attempts to re-distribute America's wealth. If the democRATs aren't stopped-and STOPPED HARD-these confiscation attempts will eventually extend to the everyday Joe and Jane "Sixpack." It'll make no difference whether a company has taken federal pork or not!! If this comes to pass and we become the United States of Amerika, maybe professional sports salaries will become at least border on realism. For instance, the top five NBA players are paid a total of $110,674,500[Mln]; The top five NFL players are paid a total of $98,800,896[Mln]; The top five MLB players are paid a total of $104,644,950[Mln]. Barney.....Wouldn't you say these are a wee bit INFLATED, even by your standards? You and "Turbo-Tax Tim" Geithner better do something about this!! Speaking of "Turbo-Tax Tim," how can an unelected federal official, representing NO ONE, be legally able to re-distribute wealth?? Oh...an' Barney....? What's the deal with this "pay for performance" title.....? Will it cover members of Congress? Regardless of party, the Congress' performance for the last decade at least, has been abysmal!! How 'bout we discuss that "Nex'Time...."]

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass. But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill.

The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees-not just top executives-of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds. In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates." The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.) The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said. Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.

After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.

Wounded Cop Update

Rochester police Officer Anthony DiPonzio, who was shot in the back of the head two months ago, moved out of the inpatient Unity Health System's Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit today and returned home. As with each of his moves since being wounded, a procession of police vehicles escorted him and his family to their Greece home. DiPonzio, 23, of Greece, was shot after he and other officers had gone to Dayton Street the afternoon of Jan. 31 for a complaint of drug activity. The officers made no arrests and were walking back to their vehicles to leave when DiPonzio was shot from behind. DiPonzio faces up to a year of rehabilitation, doctors have previously said. About two weeks ago his grandmother and some police sources said DiPonzio was starting to walk at a slow pace with a cane and assistance from a therapist. Locust Club President Mike Mazzeo said even though DiPonzio is going home, he still needs “a lot of continued rehab.” Mazzeo said DiPonzio will probably be receiving care at home and attending therapy sessions as an outpatient. He is also scheduled to have another surgery, Mazzeo said.

Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; April 1st[Lonsberry;Kodak;Porklosi]

Call To Lonsberry

Bob Lonsberry, while hosting his wildly popular mid-day talk show in Rochester, received a call urging him to run for national public office. He declined. I felt obligated to write the following email:

Dear Bob,

One of your callers on the 03/31 show was "spot-on!!" But, dismally... your reply was not the desired one. I speak of the caller that suggested you run for national office. That's not so far-fetched; the country needs someone who's NOT a lawyer, but who is brutally honest, with logic and common sense!! There are several points in your favor: 1. Your unquestionable honesty. 2. Your regional name recognition. 3. Your love-of-country. 4. Your understanding and steadfast support of the U.S. Constitution. 5. Your understanding of the needs, wants and desires of your possible constitutients. 6. Your life-long residency in western, Upstate New York. 7. Your command of the problems of the local area and the nation as a whole. 8. Your logical and insightful thought into solutions to the nation's and area's problems. Bob, now is the time to decide a little guy can beat the big guy-the professional politician! I have admired you since the first time I met you in Cohocton. Everyone has "skeletons-in-the-closet," I'm sure you have fewer than most. Please don't let perceived negativity detract you from a civic duty!! When you register your Exploratory Committee, I shall be at the fore to offer any and all support I can muster!! While I'm "a pensioner," my assistance financially will be meager at best; you have my every waking hour for knocking on doors, phone work, internet research, sweeping the floor, ANYTHING necessary!! Now is the time to figuratively "grab the socialist by the nuts" and defeat him in his own territory, on his own policies!! Please give this your usual careful, considered thought. Lonsberry for Congress!! Thanks, [My Name]

Kodak "Gallery" Changes

Kodak is changing the terms for users of its Kodak Gallery online photo album and sharing service. Effective immediately, people who have two gigabytes or less of photos stored on Kodak Gallery have to purchase at least $5 a year of prints or photo merchandise. People with more than two gigabytes of photos stored have to make annual purchases of $20, or face photo deletion. Previously, Kodak Gallery had no minimum purchase requirement. Kodak Gallery has roughly 75 million users.

Porklosi's Priorities

The House will vote this week to give its main investigative arm one of the smallest funding increases of any committee, a sign that oversight of a Democratic administration isn’t a leading priority for the Democratic Congress. The Oversight Committee, where Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) has pledged to bird-dog the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, is getting a 3 percent increase, the second-smallest boost of any committee. Overall this year, committees got a 9 percent increase, with the Small Business Committee getting the largest percentage increase, 21 percent. Oversight remains the second-highest-funded committee overall, but only the Budget Committee got a smaller increase, and it got what it requested. The Oversight panel had requested an 11 percent increase, or $1.6 million. In the House Administration Committee, that was slashed to $740,000. Last Congress, Oversight got a 5.4 percent increase; in the 109th Congress, it got a 4.5 percent increase. Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March 31st[oFluffy obama;RCSD]

When Potentates Travel

Check this out-all the expense involved when Fluffy obama travels outside the country. The Fluffmeister will travel with over 200 Secret Service agents, easily identified by their "talking shirt cuffs," RayBan sunglasses and dark business suits. Fluffy's personal aide Reggie Love, "the kid brother I never had," will be at hand to provide pens, provide inspired "Government Motors" solutions, Nicorette gum, provide inspired "presidential gifts [various CDs and DVDs]-should they be necessary, throat lozenges, tea or even aspirins.

US security teams have already carried out three visits to prepare for Obama's first official visit to Britain. The first was a "site survey", the second a "pre-advance visit" which was carried out to pick sites that the president would visit. Finally there was the "advance trip", which took place last week. Its purpose was to set up equipment, sweep venues for electronic bugs, test food for poison and measure air quality for bacteria.

Air Force One, a Boeing 747-200B is fitted with its own gym, electronic defense units and shielding to protect its complex communication devices from radiation caused by nuclear blasts. The aircraft is equipped armored glass in all windows, armor-plated wings capable of withstanding a nuclear blast from the ground, flares to confuse enemy missiles and electric defense systems able to jam enemy radar. Mirror-ball technology in the wings is able to scramble infra-red guidance systems. More than 200 miles of wiring are specially shielded from electromagnetic interference caused by a nuclear attack. The plane has 85 telephones, 19 televisions, computer suites and faxes to ensure the Fluffmeister stays in touch with the outside world. At the rear of the aircraft is Fluffy's travelling propaganda corps.

The $300,000 presidential limousine ["The Beast"], outfitted with armour-plated body and doors, a raised roof, and reinforced steel and aluminium, is the official car of "the handled". It boasts a titanium and ceramic superstructure and a sealed interior forming a "panic room[for those times when a handler is not available to provide answers to questions, provide presidential opinions]" capable of shielding him from even a chemical weapons attack. Equipped with "run flat" tires, a night-vision camera and an armored gas tank filled with foam to prevent explosion should it suffer a direct hit, it also has pump-action shotguns, tear-gas cannon, oxygen tanks and bottles of the president's blood.

While in town, His Royal Fluffiness will be flown to central London in a VH-3D helicopter known as Marine One. Again, high-tech security will dominate; Marine One is fitted with flares that can be fired to confuse heat-seeking missiles and always flies in groups containing several identical decoy helicopters.

Oh, don't forget..... Her Royal Highness, Michelle "The Chin" obama is going along for the ride. She'll have her own un-necessary staff of eight, including a secretary, a press officer and bodyguards.

[One security precaution not mentioned is Fluffy's cast-iron underdrawers. He better be wearing them any time he's not on the plane or in the Ambassador's residence. I'm afraid Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, will hand Fluffy his marshmallow "ass-on-a-platter" when he tries to force his socialist policies on the rest of the G-20!!]

Unions To Let This Happen?

The Rochester City School District will cut 287 jobs, including more than 251 teachers, under a $687 million budget proposed for the 2009-10 academic year. Superintendent Brizard, who presented the new spending plan to the school board Monday, said he expected most of the cuts could be achieved through attrition, which averages about 300 teachers each year. Rochester Teachers Association President Adam Urbanski called the spending plan "irresponsible." "The effect of that will be the ruination of the city schools," Urbanski said. But Brizard said with more than 4,000 teachers in the school district, the number represented by the cuts would be about 6 percent. And he said some classrooms now have as few as eight students. The district will manage with fewer teachers by increasing class sizes. But class sizes will still be within mandated limits, Brizard said. High school classes that now have 24 or 25 students, for example, could have 28 students next year, the contractual limit, Urbanski said. "That's less learning time for students. It's really contradicting (Brizard's) expressed purpose to achieve more learning time for kids," Urbanski said. Brizard also pointed out that his budget proposal includes only the $432 million in state funding proposed by Gov. "Double-Dealin' Dave" Paterson in his initial preliminary budget. But he anticipates the new state budget will increase that amount and allow him to reduce the number of job cuts. Brizard's budget closes a $50 million deficit mainly with the job cuts, the addition of about $17 million in federal stimulus funding, and other cuts throughout the district. The city provides $119.1 million or 17 percent, while grants contribute another 15 percent. More than 70 percent of the budget goes to salaries and benefits. [Surprising that the autocratic Rochester Teachers Association will allow this to stand. The bloat is the result of their stranglehold on the city school district. They're using an indefensible reason; the 'learning time' of students. The thugs required to be there until the age of sixteen, on many occasions, make learning impossible. The teacher has very little to no control of the classroom! The association's president says this budget will be the ruination of the district. Adam, ain'cha been watching..... it's already ruined.... check the graduation rates, suspension rates-in and out of school, weapon confiscation rates and dropout rates!!]

Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March 30th[Beck;Wagoner]

NY Times ....Fair? [Talk about shock!?!? Can anyone read this article from Monday's NY Times and not be surprised, shocked?? Mr Beck is one of the few conservative individuals [let-alone, a talkshow host] to be treated with honesty and respect in this bastion of "oFluffy [obama]-speak." As with all the other big papers the NYT "drank the KoolAid" during obama's recent "Campaign of Fluff."] “You are not alone,” Glenn Beck likes to say. For the disaffected and aggrieved Americans of the Obama era, he could not have picked a better rallying cry. Mr. Beck, an early-evening host on the Fox News Channel, is suddenly one of the most powerful media voices for the nation’s conservative populist anger. Barely two months into his job at Fox, his program is a phenomenon: it typically draws about 2.3 million viewers, more than any other cable news host except Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, despite being on at 5 p.m., a slow shift for cable news. In an interview, Mr. Beck, who recently rewatched the 1976 film “Network,” said he identified with the character of Howard Beale, the unhinged TV news anchorman who declares on the air that he is “mad as hell.” “I think that’s the way people feel,” Mr. Beck said. “That’s the way I feel.” In part because of Mr. Beck, Fox News—long identified as the favored channel for conservatives and Republican leaders—is enjoying a resurgence just two months into Mr. Obama’s term. While always top-rated among cable news channels, Fox’s ratings slipped during the long Democratic primary season last year. Now it is back on firm footing as the presumptive network of the opposition, with more than 1.2 million viewers watching at any given time, about twice as many as CNN or MSNBC. While Mr. O’Reilly, the 8 p.m. host, paints himself as the outsider and Mr. Hannity, at 9, is more consistently ideological, Mr. Beck presents himself as a revivalist in a troubled land. He preaches against politicians, hosts regular segments titled “Constitution Under Attack” and “Economic Apocalypse,” and occasionally breaks into tears. Michael Smerconish, a fellow syndicated talk show host, said that Mr. Beck “has a gift for touching the passion nerve.” Tapping into fear about the future, Mr. Beck also lingers over doomsday situations; in a series called “The War Room” last month he talked to experts about the possibility of global financial panic and widespread outbreaks of violence. He challenged viewers to “think the unthinkable” so that they would be prepared in case of emergency. “The truth is — that you are the defender of liberty,” he said. “It’s not the government. It’s not an army or anybody else. It’s you. This is your country.” And always, Mr. Beck’s emotions are never far from the surface. “That’s good dramatic television,” said Phil Griffin, the president of a Fox rival, MSNBC. “That’s who Glenn Beck is.” Mr. Beck says he believes every word he says on his TV show, and the radio show that he still hosts from 9 a.m. to noon each weekday. He says that America is “on the road to socialism” and that “God and religion are under attack in the U.S.” He recently wondered aloud whether FEMA was setting up concentration camps, calling it a rumor that he was unable to debunk. At the same time, though, he says he is an entertainer. “I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.” And like a rodeo clown, Mr. Beck incites critics to attack by dancing in front of them. The conservative writer David Frum said Mr. Beck’s success “is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility. It’s a show for people who feel they belong to an embattled minority that is disenfranchised and cut off,” he said. Joel Cheatwood, a senior vice president for development at Fox News, said he thought Mr. Beck’s audience was a “somewhat disenfranchised” one. And, he added, “it’s a huge audience.” Mr. Beck has used phrases like “we surround them,” invoked while speaking vaguely about people who do not share his discomfort with the “direction America is being taken in.” His comments have prompted several bloggers to speculate recently that the TV host may have been promoting an armed revolt. Jeffrey Jones, a professor of media and politics at Old Dominion University and author of the book “Entertaining Politics,” said that Mr. Beck engages in “inciting rhetoric. People hear their values are under attack and they get worried. It becomes an opportunity for them to stand up and do something.” Sitting in his corner office overlooking Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan, Mr. Beck rejected such charges but acknowledged that some people see sinister meanings in his commentaries. He said the people “who are spreading the garbage that I’m stirring up a revolution haven’t watched the show.” To answer his critics, Mr. Beck delivered a 17-minute commentary — remarkably long by cable standards — last Monday, answering criticisms, including one from Bill Maher that he was producing “the same kind of talking” that led Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. “Let me be clear,” Mr. Beck said. “If someone tries to harm another person in the name of the Constitution or the ‘truth’ behind 9/11 or anything else, they are just as dangerous and crazy as those we don’t seem to recognize anymore, who kill in the name of Allah.” Born in Mount Vernon, Wash., in 1964, Mr. Beck has long been a performer. His roots are in comedy — he spent years as a morning radio disc jockey — and continues to perform comedy on stages across the country. He got into the radio business to “share my opinion in a humorous way,” but the times “are so serious now that I find myself sometimes being the guy I don’t want to be — the guy saying things that are sometimes pretty scary, but nobody else is willing to say them.” On March 12 Mr. Beck introduced the 9/12 Project, an initiative to reclaim the values and principles that he said were evident the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On a special broadcast he asked: “What ever happened to the country that loved the underdog and stood up for the little guy?” When it was suggested in an interview that he sometimes sounds like a preacher, he responded, “No. You’ve never met a more flawed guy than me.” He added later: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”

The Audacity Of A Street Thug

[We're dealing with a street thug that HAS NEVER drawn a paycheck that wasn't backed by direct or indirect government funds. Now this community agitator has the audacity to fire the CEO of General Motors, renaming the company Government Motors. Check out this list of Automotive Task Force Members: • Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood • Secretary of Commerce

• Chair, Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer • Secretary of Labor

• Secretary of Energy Steven Chu • Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag • Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson • Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner Listed as designees of the task force members: • Diana Farrell, Deputy Director, National Economic Council • Gene Sperling, Counselor to the Secretary of Treasury • Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden • Edward Montgomery, Senior Adviser, Department of Labor • Lisa Heinzerling, Senior Climate Policy Counsel to the EPA Administrator • Justan Goolsbee, Chief Economist of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board • Dan Utech, Senior Adviser to the Secretary of Energy • Heather Zichal, Deputy Director, White House Office of Energy and Climate Change • Joan DeBoer, Chief of Staff, Department of Transportation • Rick Wade, Senior Adviser, Department of Commerce

Very dam' few, if any, of those on the list have ever worked in the auto industry, let alone managed a company or made a payroll!! Yet these people, oFluffy's buddies-some of those to whom he owes his current job -are making decisions that will effect the corporate world and America's economy for decades to come. With Mister Wagoner out of the way, oFluffy can pave the way for the auto companies to build the hybrids and fuel-efficient crackerboxes that Americans don't want and won't buy! On the pathway to oblivion are the full sized SUVs, pickups, sedans-those vehicles that Americans have bought and driven for more than a century! Another question from a taxpayer to oFluffy: Why are ya bailin' out Chrysler, anyway? It is a privately held company and has NO STOCKHOLDERS! The investors that thought the purchase of Chrysler was a good idea should pony-up the money to salvage what they can. You watch: This is just the start of a long, complicated path to the point where oFluffy turns "Government Motors" and Chrysler over to the auto unions; then watch the wealth transfers begin in earnest!! Kudos to FoMoCo management! Smart move, refusing porkulus funds-sofar, oFluffy can't dominate your plans.....but beware-the presidential camel's nose is under the automotive tent!!]

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said. Wagoner has been CEO for 8 years and at GM for more than 30. Wagoner joined GM in 1977, has had a senior role in GM management since 1992, becoming CEO of the company in 2000. He is considered responsible for increasing GM's focus on trucks and SUVs—at the expense of the hybrids and fuel efficient cars that have become more popular in the last couple of years. It is not yet clear who would replace him, or what role the administration would play in that process.

GM and Chrysler first requested billions in federal aid in November, warning that they could run out of cash in a matter of months if they didn't receive it. In December, President Bush agreed to loan $9.4 billion to GM and $4 billion to Chrysler. Last month, GM asked for $16.6 billion more and Chrysler requested an additional $5 billion.

Obama and his aides may have honed in on Wagoner for two reasons. First, his company is asking for the most in total federal aid: $26 billion, a figure administration officials fear could grow even larger. Second, the GM chief was tied more directly to the ill-fated decisions that that brought much of the American auto industry to the brink of collapse.

This'n'That; March 29th[1960s;TaxFreedom;Payers;SmallBusiness]

[ www.fubowear.com ]

A Time, Long Ago

Anybody old enough to remember when department stores had a lunch counter? Some even had several booths for families. I grew up in a little burg in New York's southern tier where most families had to drive several miles just to go grocery shopping. In 1960 when I was fourteen years old, an event was made of this weekly/bi-weekly chore.

With the exceptions of supermarkets and drug stores, most small towns' business districts were populated with "Mom'n'Pop" shops selling all manner of stuff. Those I fondly remember sold food!! Practically every "five and dime" had their own lunch counter-W.T. Grant's and F.W. Woolworth are particularly fond memories for me.

At a time when McDonalds [1954] and Burger King [1954] were in their relative infancy and Wendy's wasn't even thought of yet, the local lunch counter provided some of the tastiest food on the planet!! Although on some trips our meal took the last of my mom's paycheck, prices seem cheap in comparison with todays. Here are some prices from a 1960 F.W. Woolworth menu:

***Chicken Salad Sandwich [toasted, triple decker].......................65cents

***Baked Ham and Cheese Sandwich [toasted, triple decker].......60cents

***Bacon and Tomato Sandwich [toasted, triple decker]................50cents

***Ham Salad, Egg Salad, American Cheese and Pressed Ham Sandwiches:30cents

***Tulip Sundae [2 dips topped with crushed fruit]........................25cents

***Banana Split [1 banana-halved,3 dips topped with crushed fruit]39cents

***Malted Milk [popular flavors-2 dips].........................................25cents

***Milk Shake [popular flavors-2 dips]...........................................25cents ***Fresh Orange Juice [squeezed to order]...............................20/30cents

***Apple Pie [per slice]....................................................................15cents ***Layer Cake [per slice].................................................................15cents

Tax "Freedom" Day

Tax Freedom Day is the first day of the year in which a nation as a whole has theoretically earned enough income to fund its annual tax burden. It is annually calculated in the United States by the Tax Foundation-a Washington, D.C., based tax research organization. Every dollar that is officially considered income by the U.S. government is counted, and every payment to the U.S. government that is officially considered a tax is counted. Taxes at all levels of government—local, state and federal—are included. The concept of Tax Freedom Day was developed in 1948 by Florida businessman Dallas Hostetler, who trademarked the phrase "Tax Freedom Day" and calculated it each year for the next two decades. In 1971, Hostetler retired and transferred the trademark to the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation has calculated Tax Freedom Day for the United States ever since, using it as a tool for illustrating the proportion of national income diverted to fund the annual cost of government programs. In 1990, the Tax Foundation began calculating the specific Tax Freedom Day for each individual state. Tax Freedom Day varies among the 50 U.S. states, as incomes and state & local taxes differ from state to state. In 2008, Alaska had the lowest total tax burden, earning enough to pay all their tax obligations by March 29. Connecticut had the heaviest tax burden—Tax Freedom Day there arrived May 8. New Jersey had the second heaviest tax burden, having to work until May 7, to pay their total taxes. For the nation as a whole, on average, Tax Freedom Day this year, came on April 23rd!! This means that, again-on average; 30.8% of everything you earned annually, GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT, on some level; nearly 31 cents of EVERY DOLLAR!! Some historic figures on tax freedom:

***In 1900, Tax Freedom Day arrived on January 22nd, with the average being under six cents of every dollar.

***In 1930, Tax Freedom Day arrived on February 12th, averaging just under 12 cents.

***In 1940, March 7th; nearly 18 cents.

***In 2000-statistically the longest period and the highest rate; May 3rd at over 33.5 cents of EVERY DOLLAR EARNED!!

***The latest year analyzed is 2008, when Tax Freedom Day arrived on April 23rd. Last year, government at all levels confiscated over 30.5 cents on every dollar earned.

A Look At The Payers

The tax-year of 2006 is the latest IRS collection data available, which is too early to reflect any part of the recession America's in now.

***There were a total of 135,719,000[Mln] tax returns filed.

***Those returns indicated an adjusted gross income [AGI] of $8,122,040,000,000 [Trln].

***Of that $8Trln in earnings, over $1,023,739,000,000[Trln] were paid to the federal government.

With everyone whining about how much "the rich" have and how they're getting a free ride in society today, let's have a look at the top one percent of tax filers. In comparison it would do no good to look at the bottom one percent of tax filers-They're primarily "welfare-rats" that only filed to get on the "porkulus list" to receive a pork check!!

The Top One-Percent of Tax Filers:

In 2006 there were 1,357,000 who had an adjusted gross income [AGI] of $1,791,866,000,000 [Trln] and they paid $408,369, 000,000[Bln] in federal taxes. While this group's percentage share of the TOTAL AGI was 22%-they paid almost 40% of ALL FEDERAL TAXES COLLECTED!!

A 50-50 Comparison:

While the top one percent of tax filers pay a disproportionate tax; there is a great disparity when the top 50% are compared to the bottom 50%.

***Both groups are composed of 67,860,000 tax filers. The top group has an AGI of $7,105,599,000,000[Trln] compared to just $1,016,441,000,000 for the bottom group.

***Those awful, rich folks earned 87 and-a-half percent of the total AGI-while the whiners earned just 12 and-a-half percent. Although not a whiner, I, too am a member of the bottom 50% [I'm sure with hard work, drive and determination I {and ANYONE else} could be a member of the upper group!!].

***The top 50% paid over 97% of the total IRS receipts while the bottom 50% [and I] paid a paltry less-than 3%.

In The Aggregate...'Sup?!

I'd say it depends on two definitions-"rich" and "hard work."

I define "rich" as the accumulation of assets, both monetary and non-monetary that will sustain an individual or family in a desired lifestyle throughout their lifetimes.

"Hard work" can be defined two ways. The first might be physically demanding manual labor; the second might be mentally demanding thought, reasoning and logical applications.

Henry Ford, Walter P. Chrysler and William C. Durant, founder of General Motors. These folks worked in their respective businesses, doing the grunt work that everyone else did.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and Tom Galisano, founder of Paychex are illustrations of the second definition. Theirs was primarily "brain" work, with little "back-breaking" labor as we know it.

All the whiners, like the ACLU and the agitators, like ACORN-see are statistics published in some business magazine or publically available government information. They see the big numbers, in both men's cases, in the billions of dollars. What the street thugs don't-or chose not to-realize that those big numbers are comprized mostly of accumulated common stock in their respective companies. I seriously doubt if either man could come up with a million dollars tomorrow morning without selling some of their shares. It's the guys much smaller than Gates or Galisano who really make this country tick, make it prosperous and keep the economy growning.

The U.S. Congress through The Small Business Administration has defined the "small business" both in the following maximums: the number of employees and gross income. For this little venture we'll just consider "number of employees." Depending upon the industry and segment, the maximums range from 100 workers to 1,000 workers to be considered a "small business." Industries and segments like:

These folks who can have no more than 100 employees: ***Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists’ Supplies Merchant Wholesalers;

***Beer and Ale Merchant Wholesalers;

***Fish and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers;

***Stationary and Office Supplies Merchant Wholesalers;

***Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers;

***Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers;

***Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers.

Or these folks who can have no more than 500 employees:

***Burial Casket Manufacturing;

***Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing; ***Dental Laboratories;

***Blind and Shade Manufacturing;

***Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing;

***Motorcycle, Bicycle and Parts Manufacturing;

***Storage Battery Manufacturing.

Or these folks who can have no more than 1,000 employees:

***Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing;

***Motor and Generator Manufacturing;

***Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing;

***Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing;

***Computer Storage Device Manufacturing;

***Office Machinery Manufacturing;

***Small Arms Manufacturing.

If the whiners and the community agitators could shut-up long enough to look at the entire list, they'd realize that there's far more "small business" employees than there ever will be in the world's largest corporations!! Where do the complainers think the money comes from to start and sustain each and every one of these small businesses? From the "rich" guys that started them!! Every dime that's taken from an entrepreneur in taxes is a dime that won't be invested in new buildings, equipment, more employees and more research and development; just to name a few. Essentially, the more money removed from the economy in taxes; the less money there is to self-stimulate the economy-resulting in recession, or depression, or deflation, or stagflation; all harmful to the overall economy; all harmful to "the little guy and gal."

Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March 28th[Ballls;HannanText;EuroParl;

[Two New T-Shirt Designs From http://www.fubowear.com/ ]

Republicans: This Much "Testicular Fortitude?"

[... can you muster up ANY "testicular fortitude {BALLS}?" Here's an excerpt of the opposition's response to Chancellor [Great Britian] Gordon Brown's budget proposal. David Cameron has gone to great lengths to point out how the path to socialism is the path to governmental and individual financial ruin. One must remember that most of Europe is socialist, almost by definition. The US' Congressional Republicans and conservatives could well take a lesson from his speech. The Repubvatives should...nay....MUST speak out against the socialist/ fascist trail oFluffy is taking America down. In the speech, we need only substitute dollars-for-pounds and it would be a necessary response to one of oFluffy's promotional circuses for his "wealth re-distribution" plans. One needs only to substitute "oFluffy" in the appropriate places and this speech could have been made anywhere in the United States!]

David Cameron has described Chancellor Gordon Brown as an "analogue politician in a digital age", adding: "You are the past". The Tory leader was replying to the chancellor's Budget speech, claiming Mr Brown had "taxed too much, borrowed too much" and been "a roadblock to reform". "We wondered whether we'd get a budget or a leadership bid," said Mr Cameron. "We didn't get much of either." He said his party welcomed some of the plans, which he claimed had Tory roots. Mr Cameron branded the chancellor's spending forecasts as "a mess". Personal savings were down and the government was borrowing £175bn [US$255.5bln] over the next six years, he said. "This chancellor is mortgaging this country's future - that's over £6,000 [US$8,760] of debt for every household in this country," he said. In a carbon conscious world, we have a fossil-fuelled chancellor "You are an old-fashioned 'tax and spend' chancellor and that approach is completely out of date. Mr Cameron criticised Mr Brown for giving the UK the "biggest tax burden in history". "The story of this week is of a prime minister and a chancellor up to their necks in debt, making promises you can't keep and not knowing whether to work together or fight with each other as the ship starts going down," he said. The "real challenge" was competing in the global economy, but he said Mr Brown was not the right person for the job. The UK used to have the "10th lowest" business taxes in the world, but now has the "10th highest", said Mr Cameron. Despite having 10 budgets to boost science, there were science departments in universities closing. "You have had 10 budgets to improve transport and some of our motorways look like car parks. "You cannot be the change this country needs because you are the architect of the policies that have put us where we are. "Billions raised, billions spent. No idea where the money has gone." "With a record like that you should be running for treasurer of the Labour Party," he said, referring to the row over secret loans to the Labour Party. Short speech The Tory leader told Mr Brown it had not been a genuinely green budget, "and that's not surprising because you haven't made a single major speech on the environment in 11 years". "In a carbon-conscious world, we have a fossil-fuelled chancellor," he said. He mocked Mr Brown's pledges of help for pensioners, adding: "The chancellor who smashed up the pension system can't be the one to rebuild it." Mr Cameron added: "You may see yourself as the rock upon which Labour can rebuild their church - instead you are the roadblock stopping Britain from meeting the challenges of the future."

"Testicular Fortitude-Another Example:

[The text of a speech by Daniel Hannan, an elected member of The European Parliament {see next entry}. The speech essentially skewers the socialist bent of that legislative body. They've already started down the road that oFluffy is heading toward. Why is it that there's not one spinal column sturdy enough to make speeches like this to either or both houses of the US Congress?? {I started highlighting with bold type, various parts of the speech I thought important. I realized that 90% of the speech would be highlighted so I stopped!}]

Prime Minister, I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of this Parliament – that being to say one thing in this chamber, and a very different thing to your home electorate. You’ve spoken here about free trade, and amen to that; who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase ‘British Jobs for British Workers’, and that you have subsidised - where you have not nationalised outright - swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks. Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words. Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country. The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now once again today you tried to spread the blame around, you spoke about an international recession; an international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squall – but not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear up their rigging – in other words, to pay off debt – but you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the water line, under the accumulated weight of your debt. We are now running a deficit that touches almost 10% of GDP – an unbelievable figure. More than Pakistan, more than Hungary – countries where the IMF has already been called in. Now, it’s not that you’re not apologising - like everyone else, I’ve long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things these things - it’s that you’re carrying on, wilfully worsening the situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year, in the last twelve months, 125,000 private sector jobs have been lost – and yet you’ve created 30,000 public sector jobs. Prime Minister you cannot go on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorging of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re well place to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like a Brezhnev-era Apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense. Everyone knows that Britain is the worst placed to go into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by 30% – and soon the voters, too, will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are a devalued Prime Minister, of a devalued Government.

The European Parliament

The European Parliament (Europarl or EP) is the only directly elected parilamentary institution of the European Union (EU). Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council), it forms the bicameral [two chambers] legislative branch of the Union's institutions and has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world. The Parliament and Council form the highest legislative body within the Union. However their powers as such are limited to the competencies conferred upon the European Community by member states. The Parliament is composed of 785 MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) who serve in the largest trans-national democratic electorate in the world (342 million eligible voters in 2004).

IRS Changes

Prior to March, 2009, the IRS Tax Tables didn't start until after the taxpayer had earned $160. On the first of March, the revised IRS tables tax the first $7,180 at 10% and they of course, go up from there. The IRS must bring in the funds to pay oFluffy's voter base to sit on their collective dead asses, spend our money, watch our TVs, eating name-brand snacks that we can't afford!!

Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March 26th[FUBO;HR1388;FactCheck]

http://www.fubowear.com/

More "Resist-a-Wear" Coming!

Bob Lonsberry, the preeminent local talk show host on the preeminent local AM station-WHAM;1180, revealed something today. It's [probably t-shirts and bumper snickers] in the development stages, but it's gonna say something like "we earned it-you don't get it." I encourage Bob to continue to grow his "resist-a-wear" mercantile empire [ http://www.fubowear.com ] with new products that reflect the public's disgust and distrust!

H.R. 1388-Fluffy Social Engineering

[This is but one part, one section of the Fluffy Social Engineering ....er....Innovation Fund. Sure looks like another socialist giveaway program to me! Try readin' it.... BAFFLING!! The jist of this seems to be.... the democRATS haven't figured out that more giveaways aren't the answer.... gettin' 'em off their dead asses and to work IS the answer!! Just another multi-billion-dollar boondoggle the taxpayer has to fund.]

`PART III--SOCIAL INNOVATION FUND `SEC. 198F. SOCIAL INNOVATION FUND. `(a) Findings- Congress finds the following: `(1) Social entrepreneurs and other nonprofit community organizations are developing innovative and effective solutions to national and local challenges. `(2) Increased public and private investment in replicating and expanding proven effective solutions developed by social entrepreneurs and other nonprofit community organizations, could allow those entrepreneurs and organizations to replicate and expand proven initiatives in communities. `(3) Increased public and private investment to seed new solutions to our nation's most serious challenges will create a pipeline of new social innovations. `(4) A Social Innovation Fund could leverage Federal investments to increase State, local, business, and philanthropic resources to replicate and expand proven solutions, and invest in seeding new innovations, to tackle specific identified community challenges. `(b) Purposes- The purposes of this section are-- `(1) to recognize and increase the impact of social entrepreneurs and other nonprofit community organizations in tackling national and local challenges; `(2) to stimulate the development of a Social Innovation Fund that will increase private and public investment in nonprofit community organizations that are effectively addressing national and local challenges to allow such organizations to replicate and expand successful initiatives; `(3) to assess the effectiveness of-- `(A) leveraging Federal investments to increase State, local, business, and philanthropic resources to address national and local challenges; `(B) providing resources to replicate and expand effective initiatives; and `(C) seeding experimental initiatives; and `(4) to strengthen the infrastructure to identify, invest in, and replicate and expand, initiatives with effective solutions to national and local challenges. `(c) Program- The Corporation shall establish a Social Innovation Fund grant program to make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities. `(d) Periods; Amounts- `(1) For covered entities described in subsection (c)(2)(A) and (B), the Corporation shall make such grants for periods of 5 years, and may renew the grants for additional periods of 5 years, in amounts of not less than $1,000,000 and not more than $10,000,000 per year. `(2) For covered entities described in subsection (c)(2)(C), the Corporation shall make grants for up to 3 years, and may renew the grants for additional periods of 3 years, in amounts up to $500,000 per year. `(e) Eligibility- To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an entity shall-- `(1) be a covered entity; `(2) be focused on-- `(A) serving a specific local geographical area; or `(B) addressing a specific issue area, in geographical areas that have the highest need in that issue area, as demonstrated by statistics concerning that need. `(3) be focused on improving measurable outcomes relating to-- `(A) education for economically disadvantaged students; `(B) child and youth development; `(C) reductions in poverty or increases in economic opportunity for economically disadvantaged individuals; `(D) health, including access to health care and health education; `(E) resource conservation and local environmental quality; `(F) individual or community energy efficiency; `(G) civic engagement; or `(H) reductions in crime; `(4) For covered entities described in subsection (c)(2)(A) and (B), have an evidence-based decision-making strategy including, but not limited to-- `(A) use of evidence produced by prior rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including, where available, well-implemented randomized controlled trials; and `(B) a well-articulated plan to-- `(i) replicate and expand research-proven initiatives that have been shown to produce sizeable, sustained benefits to participants or society; or `(ii) partner with a research organization to carry out rigorous evaluations to assess the effectiveness of approaches. `(5) For covered entities described in subsection (c)(2)(C), have an evidence-based decision-making strategy including, but not limited to-- `(A) use of evidence produced by prior rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness including, where available, well-implemented randomized controlled trials; or `(B) a well-articulated plan to-- `(i) conduct rigorous evaluations to assess the effectiveness of approaches; or `(ii) partner with a research organization to carry out rigorous evaluations to assess the effectiveness of approaches to addressing national or local challenges. `(6) For covered entities described in subsection (c)(2)(A) and (B), have a well-articulated process for assessing community organizations for subgrants; and `(7) have appropriate policies, as determined by the Corporation, that protect against conflict of interest, self-dealing, and other improper practices. `(f) Application- To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (d) for national leveraging capital, an eligible entity shall submit an application to the Corporation at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Corporation may specify, including, at a minimum-- `(1) an assurance that the eligible entity will-- `(A) use the funds received through that capital in order to make subgrants to community organizations that will use the funds to test new initiatives, or replicate or expand proven initiatives in low-income communities; `(B) use the funds for growth capital or to test new initiatives; `(C) in making decisions about subgrants for communities, consult with a diverse cross section of community representatives in the decisions, including individuals from the public, nonprofit, and for-profit private sectors; and `(D) make subgrants of a sufficient size and scope to enable the community organizations to build their capacity to test or manage initiatives, and sustain replication or expansion of the initiatives; `(2) an assurance that the eligible entity will not make any subgrants to the parent organizations of the eligible entity, a subsidiary organization of the parent organization, or, if the eligible entity applied for funds under this section as a partnership, any member of the partnership; `(3) an identification of, as appropriate-- `(A) the specific local geographical area referred to in subsection (f)(2)(A) that the eligible entity is proposing to serve; or `(B) geographical areas referred to in subsection (f)(2)(B) that the eligible entity is likely to serve; `(4)(A) information identifying the issue areas in which the eligible entity will work to improve measurable outcomes; `(B) statistics on the needs related to those issue areas in, as appropriate-- `(i) the specific local geographical area described in paragraph (3)(A); or `(ii) the geographical areas described in paragraph (3)(B), including statistics demonstrating that those geographical areas have the highest need in the specific issue area that the eligible entity is proposing to address; and `(C) information on the specific measurable outcomes related to the issue areas involved that the eligible entity will seek to improve; `(5) information describing the process by which the eligible entity selected, or will select, community organizations to receive the subgrants, to ensure that the community organizations-- `(A) are institutions with proven initiatives, with track records of achieving specific outcomes related to the measurable outcomes for the eligible entity, or are institutions that articulate a new solution with potential for substantial impact; `(B) articulate measurable outcomes for the use of the subgrant funds that are connected to the measurable outcomes for the eligible entity; `(C) will use the funds to test, replicate or expand their initiatives; `(D) provide a well-defined plan for testing, replicating or expanding the initiatives funded; `(E) can sustain the initiatives after the subgrant period concludes through reliable public revenues, earned income, or private sector funding; `(F) have strong leadership and financial and management systems; `(G) are committed to the use of data collection and evaluation for improvement of the initiatives; `(H) will implement and evaluate innovative initiatives, to be important contributors to knowledge in their fields; and `(I) will meet the requirements for providing matching funds specified in subsection (k); `(6) information about the eligible entity, including its experience managing collaborative initiatives, or assessing applicants for grants and evaluating the performance of grant recipients for outcome-focused initiatives, and any other relevant information; `(7) a commitment to meet the requirements of subsection (i) and a plan for meeting the requirements, including information on any funding that the eligible entity has secured to provide the matching funds required under that subsection; `(8) a description of the eligible entity's plan for providing technical assistance and support, other than financial support, to the community organizations that will increase the ability of the community organizations to achieve their measurable outcomes; `(9) information on the commitment, institutional capacity, and expertise of the eligible entity concerning-- `(A) collecting and analyzing data required for evaluations, compliance efforts, and other purposes; `(B) supporting relevant research; and `(C) submitting regular reports to the Corporation, including information on the initiatives of the community organizations, and the replication or expansion of such initiatives; and `(10) a commitment to use data and evaluations to improve their model and be more transparent about its challenges; and `(11) a commitment to cooperate with any evaluation activities undertaken by the Corporation. `(g) Selection Criteria- In selecting eligible entities to receive grants under this section, the Corporation shall-- `(1) select eligible entities on a competitive basis; `(2) select eligible entities on the basis of the quality of their selection process, as described in subsection (g)(5), the capacity of the eligible entities to manage Social Innovation Funds, and the potential of the eligible entities to sustain the Funds after the conclusion of the grant period; `(3) solicit broad community perspectives that inform grant-making decisions; `(4) include among the grant recipients eligible entities that propose to provide subgrants to serve communities (such as rural low-income communities) that the eligible entities can demonstrate are significantly philanthropically underserved; and `(5) select a geographically diverse set of eligible entities. `(h) Matching Funds for Grants- `(1) IN GENERAL- The Corporation may not make a grant to an eligible entity under this section for a Community Solutions Fund unless the entity agrees that, with respect to the cost described in subsection (d) for that Fund, the entity will make available matching funds in an amount not less than $1 for every $1 of funds provided under the grant. `(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The eligible entity shall provide the matching funds in cash. `(i) Reserved Program Funds for Research and Evaluation- The Corporation may reserve up to 5 percent of total program funds appropriated to carry out this section for a fiscal year to support research and evaluation related to this section. `(j) Advisory Panel- `(1) IN GENERAL- Under authority of section 195 (f) of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Board, shall establish an Advisory Panel to provide advice and input about carrying out this section. The Advisory Panel may collectively have experience in-- `(A) social entrepreneurship and social enterprise; `(B) the management and operation of small nonprofit organizations and large nonprofit organizations; `(C) business, including a business with experience working with a startup enterprises, experience growing businesses, experience with corporate social responsibility or a business with experience working with the nonprofit sector; `(D) philanthropy, including an understanding of philanthropic challenges in urban and rural areas and in areas that are philanthropically underserved; `(E) qualitative and quantitative social science research, including scientifically-rigorous evaluations of program effectiveness; data driven decision making and evidence-based policymaking; `(F) volunteering, including effective volunteer management; and `(G) government, including the management of government agencies and the role of government programs in providing services. `(2) OTHER QUALIFICATIONS- The Advisory Panel shall include a diverse range of individuals, including young people, and individuals from diverse economic, racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds, and individuals from diverse geographic areas. `(k) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.'.

1806. CLEARINGHOUSES. Subtitle H is further amended by adding at the end the following: `PART IV--NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS CLEARINGHOUSE `SEC. 198G. NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS CLEARINGHOUSE. `(a) In General- The Corporation shall provide assistance, either by grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to entities with expertise in the dissemination of information through clearinghouses to establish one or more clearinghouses for the national service laws. `(b) Function of Clearinghouse- Such a clearinghouse may-- `(1) assist entities carrying out State or local service-learning and national service programs with needs assessments and planning; `(2) conduct research and evaluations concerning service-learning or programs receiving assistance under the national service laws unless the recipient is receiving funds for such purpose under part III of subtitle B and under subtitle H; `(3)(A) provide leadership development and training to State and local service-learning program administrators, supervisors, service sponsors, and participants; and `(B) provide training to persons who can provide the leadership development and training described in subparagraph (A); `(4) facilitate communication among entities carrying out service-learning programs and programs offered under the national service laws and participants in such programs; `(5) provide and disseminate information and curriculum materials relating to planning and operating service-learning programs and programs offered under the national service laws, to States, Territories, Indian tribes, and local entities eligible to receive financial assistance under the national service laws; `(6) provide and disseminate information regarding methods to make service-learning programs and programs offered under the national service laws accessible to individuals with disabilities; `(7) disseminate applications in languages other than English; `(8)(A) gather and disseminate information on successful service-learning programs and programs offered under the national service laws, components of such successful programs, innovative curricula related to service-learning, and service-learning projects; and `(B) coordinate the activities of the Clearinghouse with appropriate entities to avoid duplication of effort; `(9) make recommendations to State and local entities on quality controls to improve the quality of service-learning programs and programs offered under the national service laws; `(10) assist organizations in recruiting, screening, and placing a diverse population of service-learning coordinators and program sponsors; `(11) disseminate effective strategies for working with disadvantaged youth in national service programs as determined by organizations with an established expertise working with such youth; `(12) collaborate with State and local Mentoring Partnerships and directly with youth mentoring organizations to disseminate effective strategies for the recruiting, training, and screening of responsible adult mentors and best practices for building quality relationships between adult mentors and youth mentees; and `(13) carry out such other activities as the Chief Executive Officer determines to be appropriate.'

Credit Where Credit's Due

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!! The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle published a "fact check" article on the oFluffy speech of Tuesday evening. Mr Zoibi... does Craig Dubow know you did this [Ziobi-President/Pub, D&C; Dubow-CEO of parent company, Gannett Co.]? Given the whole newpaper chain's socialist bent, I was taken aback to see this AP article published. Here's what they published, throwing caution to the wind as far as the kool-aid drinkers are concerned:

***"We will recover from this recession [blah,blah,blah]. No one really knows when the recession will end. The oFluffy budget forecasts the recession will continue through this year with a decline of 1.2% in the GDP. The budget predicts 3.2% for 2010; 4% annual growth for the next three years.

***"In this budget, we have made the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term evern under the most pessimistic estimates." Not all credible estimates foresee a deficit halved in that time. oFluffy's budget forecast a deficit of $530billion by the end of 2013. To succeed, oFluffy is counting on a recovered economy, a tax boost for the rich and success in easing foreign entanglements. BUT his assertion that he can accomplish that "even under the most pessimistic estimates" flies in the face of an answer he gave moments later.

***"I suspect that some of the Republican critics have a short memeory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3trillion deficit, annual devicit, from them." True, former President Bush left that deficit but the Congress is deserving of a great majority of the "credit." The Congress which authorizes spending and is not blameless in driving up deficits, was controlled by democRATS in the last two years of the previous presidential term. [You have to decide for yourself; I contend that "Joe and Jane Six-pack" are not, and for many years have not, been represented in Congress. Now is the time to retake the U.S. Constitution and all it stands for!! Now is the time to prepare to VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT-all of 'em!!]

Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March 25th[AIG-ACORN;RochTeaParty;NYBudget;ToxAsset]

The White House Next? [I found this at: http://nicedeb.wordpress.com] [....and I edited it, only to change some words-not the basic premise {My blog doesn't use the "o" word plus, Deb is a far better writer than I; I can add nothing!!}. The White House SHOULD be next-the occupant as well as the entire congress would have known this would be a problem-HAD THEY ONLY READ THE PORKULUS LEGISLATION!! Remember, Crooked-Senator Dodd authored the amendment that protected AIG retention bonuses-ACORN might wanna protest at his houses next.... ALL OF 'EM!!] While the tea parties, (which are popping up all over the country, drawing hundreds, and even thousands of people every week), are attracting scarce attention from the media, a motley troupe of 40 ACORN malcontents that go by the name of the Connecticut Working Families Party, attracted dozens of reporters from around the world for their protest of AIG working family homes, today: I’ve been to three tea parties so far, all of which were considerably larger than this sad little exercise in class envy. Only the last one was covered by anyone in the MSM; one lone reporter from the local Fox affiliate. But the AIG bonuses are apparently what the media insists we be outraged about, not the insane spending spree Fluffy and the dems in Congress have been on. I could have worked up a little indignation over the bonuses, myself, but all of the maudlin emoting that came out of Congress, and the White House over them, knocked it right out of me. Not so with CT Working Families Party. Oh brother, here comes the sob stories: “We think $165 million could be used in a more appropriate way to keep people in their homes, create more jobs and health care,” said Emeline Bravo-Blackport, a gardener. She marveled at AIG executive James Haas’ colonial house, which has stunning views of a golf course and the Long Island Sound. The Fairfield house is “another part of the world” from her life in nearby Bridgeport, which flirted with bankruptcy in the 1990s and still struggles with foreclosures and unemployment.” “Lord, I wonder what it’s like to live in a house that size,” she said. Another protester, Claire Jeffery, of Bloomfield, said she’s on the verge of foreclosure. She works as a housekeeper; her husband, a truck driver, can’t find work. I’m not sure how protesting the AIG executives’ homes is going to help with any of that. They could be, you know… working. Rochester "Tea Party" [Hell, if I'da known about this-I'DA BEEN THERE!!! Who ever organized this should have given it some advertising, maybe local call-in shows, Lonsberry, Brother Wease, etc. The comment copied below indicates "a re-run" on April 15th; if so-I'LL BE THERE!!] Last Update: 3/12 6:37 am (Rochester, N.Y.) - Angry taxpayers upset with the Fluffy administration and Congress rallied on East Main Street Wednesday to protest the government's bailout plan.They called it a "Tea Party Rally."Group members said they're protesting out-of-control spending and tax hikes by both federal and state governments."In New York state, we have the double whammy…living in a state with the highest taxes in the union…it's squeezing us. We're losing population and losing businesses," said one protestor. Passage of Fluffy's nearly $800 billion porkulus package drew similar protests in 40 major cities across the country last week. One of the dozen replies: [UserName]-3/11/2009 We had about 40 people in the cold and wind. Still, this was one of about 60 Tea Parties held so far nationwide since February 22. April 15 is our next protest date. 'Bout Dam' Time! [I guess Guvner Dave has FINALLY RECOVERED from his cerebral-anal inversion! With the state coffers bleeding money faster every passing day, he's finally decided that one of the state's most powerful labor unions is fair game. Maybe the $16BILLION in red ink startled him into action. Now he needs to renegotiate the state employees' retirement plan. It's one of those "defined benefit" plans where employees contribute exactly "zero-point-crap" and the retiree's monetary benefit is raised every year or two with the taxpayers making up any shortfall in investment returns!! They should be forced to live "in the real world" under a "defined contribution" plan.....Ya don't put nuttin' in-Ya don't git nuttin' out!!! While yer attit Dave, renegotiate all the bucks the state teacher's union fleeced the taxpayers out of.... that'd probably make up the budget shortfall in a cuppla months!!] (Abany, N.Y.) AP - Gov. David Paterson is ordering 8,900 state workers be laid off [just over 4%!] after unions refused concessions amid a staggering economic downturn. Budget Director Laura Anglin tells The Associated Press that Paterson is calling for the first state layoffs since the late 1990s after unions refused to even provide counter proposals. The layoffs could begin July 1. Anglin says unions have been informed, but could still try to return to the table in the coming days before a budget is negotiated. She says the layoffs will save nearly $500 million over two years. The state faces a $16 billion deficit this year. Kazillionaires Out Of Billionaires? [Just when I thought there were no more; another vehicle to control more of the American economy on the taxpayers' backs. Essentially, the government loans the investors the money to buy the toxicity. If the investors take a loss they don't have to repay Fluffy; If the investors have a profit-they'll probably be subject to current or future federal compensation limits.... just more socialistic manipulation!!] WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - After months of delay, the Treasury Department detailed a plan Monday to clear out as much as $1 trillion in so-called toxic assets from the financial sector in an effort to strengthen the banks enough to get them to lend again. The public-private plan would have private investors and the Treasury put in equal amounts of money that would then be backed by a loan guarantee from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to buy loans and mortgage-backed securities from the banks. Both the taxpayers and the private investors would gain from any profits if the assets eventually gain value. The taxpayer would take most of the downside risk. The plan is considered the linchpin of the government's strategy to get the financial system working again to provide the credit the economy needs. Since the credit crunch intensified in September, millions of jobs have been lost and the economy has contracted at the fastest pace in decades. The fallout from the U.S. banking crisis has spread around the globe. The assets are considered "toxic" because the market for them has dried up as home prices have plunged. Banks are unwilling to sell the loans and securities for pennies on the dollar, and investors are cautious about overpaying for assets that might become worthless. The Treasury plan is an attempt to give both the banks and potential buyers an incentive to make a deal. The Treasury program has been eagerly awaited for the past six weeks after "Turbo-Tax Tim" Geithner's initial roll-out in early February was panned by the market. The reaction was highly favorable on Monday. Stocks jumped on Wall Street on optimism that the plan would work. Banks stocks in particular gained. The plan offers "the best prospect for a financial recovery," said Lawrence Summers, top economic adviser to The Fluffmeister. "The goal of this program is to restart the market for legacy securities, allowing banks and other financial institutions to free up capital and stimulate the extension of new credit," the Treasury said in a news release. The plan was designed "to make the most of taxpayer resources." In a briefing for reporters, Turbo-Tax said private investors could take losses if the assets fall in price. He said an auction would determine the price paid for the assets. The details announced Monday would cover purchases of whole loans held by banks. Many analysts took a wait-and-see attitude on whether the plan would work. "Unfortunately, we will not know until we see the program in actual operation," said Douglas Elliott. "There are substantial reasons to be concerned that the program will fizzle or prove to be too expensive for the taxpayer, but there are also some grounds for hope." One key stumbling block is that the assets could already have lost 70% of their value, Elliot said. Jeremy Siegel, a professor at the Wharton School of Business, said the plan would prove attractive to private investors because it was like a "call-option" on the toxic assets. "If the asset values go below the purchase price, the Treasury is going to eat that loss. This plan is definitely going to work," Siegel said in a television interview. The Treasury's ambitious program would revolve around five steps: [1.] A bank decides what pool of assets they would like to sell. [2.] After determining that it would be willing to leverage the pool, the FDIC will conduct an auction. For instance, mortgages with $100 face value would be bought for $84. Of the $84, the FDIC would provide guarantees for $72 of financing, leaving $12 of equity. [3.] The Treasury would then provide 50% of the equity financing. In this example, [4.] Treasury would invest $6 and the private investor would contribute the other $6. [5.] The private investor would manage the servicing of the asset pool using managers approved by the FDIC. Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March 24th[ToxicAssets;SeveredArm]

"Toxic Assets-"A Definition[?]

A fresh effort to end the paralysis in lending was launched Monday by the Fluffy administration, which will join with investors to buy up around $500 billion in soured assets from banks. But what exactly are these toxic assets the government wants to get off the banks' books-and how did they get to be poisonous?

Toxic assets are, mostly, the investments backed by risky subprime mortgages that are held by the larger U.S. banks and that have lost value, dragging down their balance sheets and their fortunes. It started in early 2007, when the mortgage crisis hit and defaults on subprime home loans, those made to borrowers with tarnished credit histories, began to climb. That gutted the value of the mortgage-backed securities—subprime mortgages bundled together and sold on Wall Street to investors—held on the books of the big banks. When the banks—like Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.—started writing down the value of the securities, they reported billions of dollars of losses. Their capital eroded and they didn't have the money to make loans. Credit dried up. Banks large and small foundered and failed. The crisis was in full throttle. There now are an estimated $2 trillion in bad assets on banks' books. The official value of these assets has become very low because current market conditions would make it hard to fetch much for them. The theory is that they'd be worth a higher and more realistic price if sold in a more orderly, less "forced" manner. The main focus for the new program is on assets tied to residential and commercial mortgages. But the Treasury Department said that could evolve, based on market demand, to embrace other types of assets. That could include securities backed by credit card debt, student loans or auto loans, which have suffered in recent months from rising defaults and have been aided by lending from the Federal Reserve. The phrase seems to have come into usage not long ago, in mid-2007. Before that, from the savings and loan crisis two decades ago up through the 2007 meltdown, they were called bad assets or troubled assets, but not toxic. The Fluffmeister avoided using the "T" word in his statement Monday on the new plan. He called them "bad" assets. But the administration's new code phrase for them, used by the Treasury Department, is "legacy assets" because they've been around so long—and it sounds a lot less noxious.

[No matter whatt'cha call 'em... they're still worthless! Fluffy and "Turbo-Tax" Tim are counting on those investors in the public to not see thru the current round of "smoke and mirrors." A public-private partnership-how exactly, is that gonna work? I've never seen a partnership that's diametrically opposed, philosophically, succeed. The "investor" by definition, is conservative; the Fluffy government as they've deomonstrated, is socialist. This is all about control; more and more control of the American economy! How much input do you think "the investor" is gonna have in this partnership? In a business relationship, the two would be akin to trying [and failing] to mix oil and water. They don't and won't mix! Check this out- In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead–in most cases in which it was used–made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico). In recent days, The Fluffmeister's handlers have expressed a desire to explore the possibility of restricting ALL executives' compensation. Given that advancement of socialism, "the investors" have government pay restrictions to look forward to as well.]

One Lucky Kid....

A teenage boy whose arm was severed during an accident at a Portland Avenue laundromat survived an operation Friday evening, city police Capt. Kevin Costello said. The teen, who police said was about 13, was doing laundry at about 5:50 p.m. and reached into a washing machine to remove a sheet. His arm became entangled in the sheet and was severed by the machine. He was transported to Strong Memorial Hospital, where he underwent surgery. Costello said he did not know whether doctors were able to reattach his arm. [Word is the arm was re-attached and expected to thrive.]

Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; March 23rd[Charities;TeaParty;Fluff;CorpControl]

Remember The "Little" Charities The large, national and international charities seem to "hold their own" in good times and bad; most have endowments and trust funds to draw from when public donations wane. The "little guys-" the small local or regional charities-rely almost exclusively on public donations and funding activities to maintain their levels of benefit to the needy and deserving.

During my trucking career, my only "relationship" to Roanoke, Va., was to stop at the Super Walmart in Salem, a few miles south. After I found, met and became friends with "Slam" Duncan, did this "relationship" develop further [read entry of 12/24/007]. I [and the "Young Miss Lovely"] furthered my friendship with "Slam," met the charity's president "Miz Linda" and attended one of their fund raisers at that same Salem Walmart!!

I'm sure that your local charity is "far more local" than mine, with 560+ miles between here and Roanoke, Va. For the past couple of years, we've only been able to send checks. After that first visit to the fundraiser, we've been unable to visit the area. We rarely fail to share our financial blessings with the charity.

Orlando Tea Party

[The time has come for Americans to stand up for their principles!! Those folks in Orlando, Florida, did just that-BUT it needs to spread nationwide, ON A HUGE SCALE!! I'm ready-Are you?? Actually, it's time the various media resumed their role as an unofficial watchdog over the executive branch!! Where have all the investigative reporters like Woodward and Bernstein gone?!?! {Hint: Protest items available at http://www.fubowear.com/ and http://www.flagstuff.com/ }]

Singer Lloyd Marcus told the crowd assembled in Lake Eola Park on Saturday that he was going to give them his take on the first days of the Obama administration.Then he shrieked.That pretty much summed up the mood in the park Saturday afternoon, when more than 4,000 people attended the Orlando Tea Party, a conservative rally aimed at expressing discontent with Washington. "This is maybe the greatest single gathering of God-fearing patriots in the history of Orlando, Florida," local conservative radio host Bud Hedinger, who emceed the event, told the crowd. The attendees, many of whom said they'd heard about the rally on Hedinger's radio show, brandished flags and homemade signs bearing slogans such as "Repeal the pork or our bacon is cooked" and "Obama lied, liberty died.""We're really scared about what's happening in our country," said Debby Whisenand, 71, of Largo in Pinellas County. She waved a sign that read "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" on one side, and "You can't blame Bush anymore" on the other.Her feelings were shared by Lisa Feroli, one of the event's organizers, who said that a similar fear motivated her to e-mail Hedinger with the idea for the Orlando Tea Party."The goal was to get people united, to let people know that they aren't alone in their feelings on despair," Feroli said. "We want to speak out against the push toward socialization that we feel is taking place in our country."Several speakers addressed the crowd, estimated by Orlando police and event organizers at 4,200, on a variety of topics, including gun rights, freedom of speech, the dangers of communism and, most prevalently, the economy, especially the Obama administration's bailout plan."We have had enough of massive government-driven bailout using our money," Hedinger said, prompting the crowd to start chanting "U.S.A." over and over.The country's economic woes weighed heavily on attendees, such as Ed Squire, 52, of Winter Springs. Holding a sign that read "Obama — he's robbin U.S. not Robin Hood," he said that he was worried about the current rate of government spending."There's absolutely no way as a nation that we can sustain that kind of spending," Squire said.Several members of the crowd said they'd recently been laid off, including Ross Iannarelli, 66, of Port Orange, who said he'd just lost his job at an electrical-equipment company."They need to shove that bum out," he said, referring to President Obama. "I hate seeing them spend my grandchildren's money."Glenn Austin, 52, and his wife, Frankie, 43, of Oviedo, also said they were anxious about the economy. They chose to express their worries, however, in a rather novel way: They wrapped banners calling for the end of the Federal Reserve around the tiny waists of their Chihuahua, Pepper, and miniature pinscher-Chihuahua mix, Peanut."Everything's gone to the dogs," Frankie Austin said.

Remember The "Campaign Of Fluff?"

That was when Candidate Fluffy chided then President Bush for having a $1Trillion deficit. Now, The Fluffmeister's budget proposal added to all the porkulus, will increase the deficit $1Trillion PER YEAR for 10 years!!! [SEE ABOVE!!]

Now They've Done It!

[It started with Fluffy's handlers getting "their noses under the tent flap" with the porkulus bailouts and giveaways. Now The Fluffer is set to limit compensation for all executives of any company whose stock is publically traded..... Now the executives will be left with "change they can believe in-" ...the change Fluffy leaves in their pockets!!]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said. The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for Fluffy's first foreign summit meeting in early April. Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system. It will propose that many kinds of derivatives and other exotic financial instruments that contributed to the crisis be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses so they are more transparent and can be more tightly regulated. And to protect consumers, it will call for federal standards for mortgage lenders beyond what the Federal Reserve adopted last year, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the mortgage rules. The administration has been considering increased oversight of executive pay for some time, but the issue was heightened in recent days as public fury over bonuses spilled into the regulatory effort. The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation. One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company. The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the presidential campaign, Fluffy repeatedly urged regulators to adopt new rules to give shareholders a greater voice in setting executive pay for all public companies. And last month, as part of the porkulus package, Congress barred top executives at large banks getting rescue money from receiving bonuses that exceeded one-third of their annual pay. The regulatory plan is being put together ahead of the meeting of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations in London. The meeting, which begins April 2, is expected to be dominated by the global financial crisis and discussions about better oversight of large financial companies, whose problems could threaten to undermine international markets. An important part of the plan still under debate is how to regulate the shadow banking system that Wall Street firms use to package and trade mortgage-backed securities, the so-called toxic assets held by many banks and blamed for the credit crisis. Officials said the plan would also call for increasing the levels of capital that financial institutions need to hold to absorb possible losses. In a sign of the economic system’s fragility, officials said the administration would emphasize that those heightened standards should not be imposed now because they could discourage more lending. Rather, they would be put in place after the economy began to rebound. “The argument some are making is that they don’t want to be stepping on the gas pedal and the brake at the same time,” said Morris Goldstein, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former top official at the International Monetary Fund. Administration officials are also debating how tightly to supervise hedge funds. A broad consensus has emerged among regulators and administration officials that hedge funds must be registered and more closely monitored, probably by the Securities and Exchange Commission. But officials have not decided how much the funds will have to disclose about their investments and trading practices. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the regulatory plan was still being formulated and they did not want to upstage Fluffy or "Turbo-Tax Tim" Geithner, who will describe the plan when he appears before Congress on Thursday. A central aspect of the plan, which has already been announced by the administration, would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large troubled companies not now regulated by Washington, like insurance companies and hedge funds. That proposal would, for instance, make it easier for the government to cancel bonus contracts like those given to executives at AIG, which have stoked a political furor. Under the proposal, the Treasury secretary would have the authority to seize and wind down a struggling institution after consulting with the president and upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the Federal Reserve board. Long before he became Treasury secretary, "Turbo-Tax Tim" sought broader authority for the government to resolve problems at financial institutions not under bank regulators’ supervision. The government now has the power to take over only the banking unit that controls federally insured deposits of large troubled institutions, not the parent company — a limit that could pose problems if large financial conglomerates like Citigroup or Bank of America continued to spiral downward. In unveiling the regulatory plan, Mr. Obama would signal to Europe that he intended to crack down on the risk-taking and other free-wheeling practices by the financial industry that resulted in the global economic meltdown. France and Germany especially have suggested that the better response is not more government spending but tighter regulation. The Fluffy administration has urged European nations to do more to restart their economies through financial stimulus. The Fluffmeister is hoping that by showing a serious commitment to tighter regulation he can more easily persuade other countries to increase government spending and stimulate demand by consumers and businesses that would help pull the global economy out of a serious decline. But the administration’s efforts, especially on tighter regulation of hedge funds, are not expected to assuage some European countries. Moreover, the hedge fund industry has significant influence on Capitol Hill and has shown that it can defeat proposals it finds onerous. From the outset of the Fluffy administration, officials and European leaders have disagreed over how much to limit pay. And "Turbo-Tax" has discouraged the administration from imposing across-the-board limits on compensation of all employees at troubled companies receiving federal assistance and more burdensome pay restrictions at healthy institutions that the administration is trying to encourage to take government money so they can increase lending. Last week, Ben Bernanke the Fed chairman, also called on regulators to supervise executive pay at banks more closely to avoid “compensation practices that can create mismatches between the rewards and risks borne by institutions or their managers.” Much of the plan would require the approval of Congress, where divisions are forming over how best to overhaul financial industry oversight. Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the Financial Services Committee, said he believed giving the government new authority to take over troubled companies could be adopted by the House relatively quickly, particularly after the furor over the AIG bonuses. But Mr. Frank and other lawmakers said other elements of the plan could take more time, like expanding the authority of the Federal Reserve to become a systemic regulator. In a hearing Thursday, Senator Chris Dodd, the crooked Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the banking committee, expressed skepticism about that proposal. “Whether or not those vast powers will reside at the Fed remains an open question,” said Mr. Dodd, pointing out that the Federal Reserve had failed to apply tough oversight of the companies it now regulates.