Recess Par-TAY!

This is what happens when Republican opposition is only for reasons of trying to cripple the government under the Obama administration, be it the Consumer Protections Bureau, or the National Labor Relations Board to establish a quorum, or an ever growing number of vacancies in the federal judicial system (101 and counting). So enough is enough.

President Obama touched off a fierce election-year confrontation with Congressional Republicans on Wednesday, defying their deep opposition to appoint Richard Cordray as director of a new consumer protection agency and fill three labor board vacancies.

Whine all you want, Republicans, but refusing to even meet to vet or discuss nominations for positions to make the gears of government run is a bullshit move, and you can just fuck off.

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said, adding, “I am not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people we were elected to serve.”

Oh, and there's also this:

"Despite the inevitable conservative complaints that President Obama is engaged in some kind of massive overreach by recess appointing Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer financial protection watchdog, the truth is that Obama has used his recess appointment power very sparingly. After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243. When you divide these numbers by the number of years each man spent in the White House, it reveals that Obama is far and away the least likely president to invoke this power."

So yeah, fuck off, hypocrites.

Does Limbaugh Ever Get Tired of Being Wrong?

Rush Limbaugh today railed against the Obama administration and their plans to be able to alert you via the FCC of disasters through your cell phone. There's only one problem:

This plan was authored by Tea Party poster boy, Jim DeMint in 2006 and passed by Congress and also supported by an executive order signed by President Bush. In 2006 the GOP controlled all of Congress and the White House. This is a GOP plan, not a Democratic one.

Did he actually read about this other than from his faxed talking points? Or did he purposely omit the fact that this national emergency alert system has been in the works for five years?

He's such a funny jester.

(H/T Intoxination)

Gay Marriage

POSTED BY JHW22

This just in...

The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.

Woo hoo!

I Hope He Loses His Shirt

Shirley Sherrod has filed a lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart over a video released by the conservative personality that lead to her ouster as an official at the USDA.

...The video first gained widespread public attention when it was posted on Breitbart's BigGovernment.com. The two-minute, 38-second clip was widely received as an admission by Sherrod, who is African American, that she had discriminated against a white farmer. Under immediate pressure from the Obama administration, Sherrod resigned from her position as the USDA's director of rural development in Georgia.

When a full 43-minute copy of the video surfaced, additional context turned the story into one of reconciliation. Sherrod had actually saved the man's farm and started a lifelong friendship.

Breitbart is going to attempt hiding behind the First Amendment, saying that he "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think slander and libel are protected by the Constitution.

Let's not forget that the Obama administration and the NAACP were quick to judge Sherrod as well, their sole basis being the edited video on Breitbart's website. But if Breitbart were actually a journalist and looked deeper into the matter instead of a vainglorious nutbag, he wouldn't be claiming he was duped. He knew exactly was he was doing and didn't care about the consequences - the rubes only get to know the first half of any tainted story before pulling out their pitchforks and torches.

Answer to an excellent question

POSTED BY JHW22

In the comments of the previous post, one of our loyal readers, Vic, asked a question of Broadway Carl and me. How do we feel about the federal pay freeze? Rather than answering in a comment, I figured I'd make it a post. I'm feeling rather long-winded today and it's a point that deserves more discussion than I could provide in a comment. And I am over-due for a post anyway.

I am very supportive of Pres O, but I admit that there are moments when the doubting arguments start to make a dent - like today. What do you and Jennifer make of his salary freeze announcement? The perception that he always caves before he needs to is starting to get to me.

Vic used a key word, "perception". It is exactly THAT -- a perception. One of my consistent beefs is with the distortion of, selection of and analysis of the administration by our media. THEY decide what we know. THEY decide what details we receive. THEY decide what tone to set. THEY decide OUR moods. But honestly, none of us know how Obama got to the salary freeze decision. Because it was a surprise to us does not mean that it wasn't without a fight.

I understand the frustration people feel but I disagree with the premise that he caves before he tries. We have no clue what or with whom or for how long or how he discusses any issue. Just as he says he needs to get out of the fishbowl that is Washington, we need to realize that we are not looking into a fish bowl and seeing all there is to see. However, we are told to believe he just jumps without thinking or fighting. Why? Why do we continually go where we are led by the very people we criticize repeatedly for being, as Palin correctly states, "lame"? What about Obama in his speeches, in his politicking, suggests that the perception is the reality? Why don't WE do a better job demanding that the two match? Instead we allow the perception to become the accepted stance and then we fight against it. In many ways, we create our own enemies out of thin air. We waste energy and resources punching shadows instead of stopping and thinking and trying to grasp why decisions are made.

We aren't in the room, on the phone or at the other end of the Presidential Blackberry. WE don't know when he goes to the wall or when he realizes that flexibility is key to progress.

Secondly, Obama wasn't really a fighter in the campaign. I don't know how many times Dems would say, "I wish he'd....". We've done it to him since day one. Often I hear "We want the campaigner" back as if that Obama were a different person. He hasn't changed. His job has changed. I've always said that a campaign is a wedding but being President is the marriage. Weddings are about the drama and excitement, the memories and good vibes. But everyone who is married, or in a long-term relationship, hell, even a friendship, knows that the wedding ends when the bride and groom drive off with cans strung to their bumper.

When my husband and I were first married, we fought all the time and the fights may have appeared to be about stupid things but they were always about one thing at the root of it all: communication. And it's with persistence and bending and listening and changing that a marriage progresses into a relationship that makes both people feel involved and active and stable.

The problem is that we can't communicate with Obama in any direct way. A speech is one-sided. A press conference doesn't necessarily address our specific questions. We can't get in deep to understand and share with the very person we want to hold accountable for every decision made. It's truly not fair. We demand so much of a President but have no way of communicating with him. Instead, we rely on the media to do it for us and we get frustrated at him when the messenger tells us to.

Now the Republicans are threatening to block all legislation unless the Democrats add to the deficit by extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. It's hypocrisy in so many damn ways. We all know that. But what is the best way of dealing with them? Is being equally stubborn the answer?

The Democrats didn't care about the deficit much more than being able to call hypocrisy on the Republicans before. We don't care if we add to it if it creates stimulus. But by goddess we won't add to it if it benefits the wealthy!

Well, here's the deal. We need to be grown-ups. Do I want us to add to the deficit? NO. I have been one of the Democrats who wants to pay it down so we can free ourselves from debt to places like, oh, China. But do I think there is no solution other than black and white? No. I am realistic. There are options. We are as bad as the Republicans when we say "we won't compromise". Hell, that's what the Republicans said in their letter. We know that Murkowski said she would vote to repeal DADT because it's the right thing to do. But now she'd block it because she wants to play a game of extortion?

Do I like extortion? No. That's why I also don't like blanket statements like "Tell Obama not to compromise" especially when followed by some vague threat of primarying him with someone "more liberal".

WE MUST COMPROMISE. But compromise is a bad word these days. So from now on I'll just call it what it is: being a grown up. Progress is working toward a goal. It isn't being a stubborn ass (pun intended) refusing to climb a mountain. Progress is being the bigger person and seeing that giving an inch gains a mile. Who gives a fuck about the inch when we have a mile?!

Priorities and perspective. We need them. We also need to step back from our knee-jerk emotional responses and see that big picture our President is always seeing and trying to show us. It's on us to stop demanding specifics and start thinking about what is more important: the result or how we get it. I want results and we are getting them from President Obama. How we get them is water under the bridge.

Back to the initial point about the salary freezes, the best I can articulate it is this: we have been creating private sector jobs. We have been losing public sector jobs. I would rather we freeze salaries than lay people off. And yes, some workers will be frozen at a pay that is too low already. But that is better than being without a job or having to get a similar paying job with zero health benefits.

I am constantly remind myself of four things:

1) Am I being a hypocrite? If so, reconcile it with integrity and honesty.

2) Do I believe the source or the spin? If not, decide what I think.

3) Read, watch or learn two positive things for every negative thing I read.

4) Obama IS the person I voted for. He IS doing the exact job I expected him to do. The frustrations are valid but irrelevant to the bigger picture of a nation consisting of opposing views and opinions and interpretations of fact. Follow Obama's lead on this because he's a grown up and I need to try to act like a grown up myself.

Oh, and I should probably add that we all define "fighting" differently. My idea of the President fighting may not be his idea or your idea or a Republican's idea. People need to stop clinging to semantics on this issue.

Sick of Memes? How about the "Obama doesn't tout his accomplishements blah blah blah" meme?

POSTED BY JHW22

By request, here is a comment I left on Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog. It was in response to the "Obama doesn't talk about his accomplishments" and the "they need to repeat it over and over" memes. Why pretend to rewrite it as a post when it's perfect as I wrote it? ;) I am thinking David Corn needs to read it.

(Okay, fine, I corrected a few errors)

A) The administration and Congress HAVE talked about their accomplishments -- every day! How do people think their message is supposed to get out, however, when the media cuts away from a town hall rally? When they don't air the WH daily press briefing? When they book more analysts than actual representatives for their on-air BS sessions?

www.whitehouse.gov posts information every day that shows the work they are doing: but how many Americans go there? Are we so lazy that we only want information to come to us? And then we criticize the administration when the media doesn't do that job well? Obama doesn't run the networks so this argument that they haven't touted their accomplishments enough should be aimed at the media who doesn't bother to reflect that they ARE touting their accomplishments.

B) The administration is forced, by the American media and people, to buffer all good news. They can't talk about job creation being up, the GDP being up, the deficit going down, etc. without having to say "but it's not good enough". If they don't preface and disclaim with that statement, they are "out of touch". But each time they buffer good news, people hear the "but" and not the good.

C) Rachel Maddow has done a rundown of the accomplishments at least twice before last night. I recall her doing it once a month or every six weeks or so. And that proves my point. Rachel is supportive of the accomplishments and she does a kick-ass job of presenting them. But even she doesn't "repeat" it often enough. That is not anything the administration can control, is it? Why don't WE tell the people we watch to do a better job?

We are so willing to bitch and moan about the administration but we forget that the media consistently drops the ball. And what do we do about that? Nada. We boycott them when they hire asshats. But we don't remind them that the administration's message needs to be discussed at least once a day.

Pentagon Suspends DADT After Court Injunction and Why DOJ Must Appeal

From the Dept. of Defense website:

Pending an appeal, the military services have halted discharges under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, DOD officials said today.

Judge Virginia Phillips of the U.S. Central District of California ordered the halt to discharges and investigations. Phillips found the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute unconstitutional in a Sept. 9 ruling. On Oct. 12, she issued an injunction ordering the Defense Department worldwide to halt discharges and investigations.

“Earlier today, the staff judge advocate generals from the military services, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Defense Office of General Counsel, sent to their service staff judge advocate counterparts in the field an e-mail informing them of the ruling by Judge Virginia Phillips of the Central District of California, issuing an injunction barring the enforcement or application of 10 United States Code 654, commonly known as the ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ statute,” Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan said in a written statement.

“The e-mail noted that the U.S. government is contemplating whether to appeal and to seek a stay of the injunction,” Lapan said.

“The Department of Defense will of course obey the law, and the e-mail noted that, in the meantime, the department will abide by the terms in the court’s ruling, effective as of the time and date of the ruling,” he said.

It's only a matter of time before Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but so far, every headline I read regarding the pending appeal is the contradictory approach the Obama administration has in wanting the law repealed while defending the law.



I love me some Rachel Maddow, but her snark here is a little much. And she does have a dog in this fight. Thankfully, her guest, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, makes this convoluted situation very clear.

...the President said that this will end on his watch, and he's actually moved the ball pretty far down -- down the road to making that happen because the President has gotten the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to agree that the policy should end. He, himself, has stated unequivocally that it undermines our national security, and that's going to be a powerful argument in court. I think the government really has no choice but to appeal the case because we don't want a system where a single federal judge can invalidate an act of congress and the president simply say, well, that's it, we're not going to seek to appeal that. 

And here is the crux of the argument.

Imagine, Rachel, three years down the road if someone is challenging the health care, individual mandate or the minimum coverage requirements and there's a Republican president in the White House and they find one federal district judge who holds that it's unconstitutional. I don't think the Supreme Court would agree with that, not close. But suppose one district court held it unconstitutional.

You don't want a situation where they say, we're just not going to appeal... 

 ...But they are going to appeal. And they are going to tell the court that in our view it's unconstitutional because it's harmful to the military.

Watch the whole, enlightening interview here.



Can we now stop all the outrage about the evil Obama administration secretly not wanting DADT to go away? Can we let this play out for the final two or three months? It's been in place for 16 years, and I know it's easy for me to say, "hold your horses and let this play out" because it doesn't affect me, but for god's sake, if this is done correctly, there is no way it's going to come back. And ultimately, isn't that what we want?

Yeah, well I'M mad as hell, too!

Posted by JHW22

I have been pissed for over a year now. I left sites I was once fairly active on, haven't even peeked at them, because I was so furious at the wasted energy at the sites and the energy they sucked out of me. The vitriol against Dems by Dems, the purity tests and new definitions of liberal or progressive to make "others" of people within our own party accomplished nothing but raised blood pressure and inner-party disgust. We have our own civil war -- our own "tea party" revolt -- in the Democratic party going on it's just that Dems are so f'ing lazy that we don't get special wall to wall coverage.

Or do we?

See, all the anti-administration crap from the left has created the talking points on the right. I am consistently hearing Republicans use the "change" argument in their explanation of Tea Party wins. They are saying that Americans aren't being heard in DC or that the change we got wasn't what we expected. It KILLS me that people who fought change are now saying they didn't get the change they wanted and that the only Americans worth listening to are the fringe right. But WE DID GET CHANGE! We ARE being listened to. We elected a person based on his agenda and he is checking things off that agenda by the day -- no, by the minute. Our President is working his ass off and what have SOME given him? Disrespect, moaning and groaning, bitching and blubbering, demands and irrational expectations and punishments.

Everything from "Kill the Bill" to gay members of the armed services outing themselves to make a point -- yet were not willing to make the point when we had a President who didn't commit to overturning DADT. No, they waited until the President who committed to ending DADT was in office and then held HIS feet to the fire. The President who will overturn DADT is the one not good enough because he didn't do it fast enough.

I have consistently rocked between being angrier at public Republicans like Palin and Boehner or at the private Republicans like my aunts and uncles. But every so often I remember to heap some of my anger on the countless Democrats who have wasted so much damn energy complaining about their own selfish agendas that they have ENABLED and ALLOWED the Republicans to go unchecked for over a year and to give Independents nothing to feel good about in regards to the last 20 months. Republicans run around creating hysteria as SOME Democrats say the President hasn't accomplished anything -- that this wasn't the change they voted for. So what do private Republicans hear? They hear: the President is worse than we thought. What do private Independents hear? They hear: The President isn't doing as much as I thought.

So thanks a lot to all the self-redefined liberal/progressive/Democrats who think you got screwed by the President. Guess what? You didn't. But if you don't get off your pissed asses and vote for Democrats this November then shut the fuck up as you watch the Obama administration face the wasteful scrutiny Clinton faced when Republicans ran the show in Congress. If you care more that we have a Congress that will be better for late night comedians than the American people, then don't vote but then shut the fuck up.

Whether or not you are pissed at Obama or Reid, staying home on election day is pathetic and goes against the very nature of a progressive. DO you want change? Really? What kind? Do you want this kind of change?

Bachmann
O'Donnell
Paladino
Paul
Angle

I was so relieved to hear Vice President Biden on Rachel Maddow last night. I loved hearing him tell Democrats to "Get in gear, man." We need to be fired up and ready to go. And if SOME people are looking to be fired up by someone else instead of getting there on their own [insert Christine O'Donnell joke here], then they are as lazy as the Republicans think they are.

I am going to vote. One reason is because I live in a red state and I don't take the opportunity for granted. I KNOW what it's like to have asshole Republicans not listening to the constituents who approve of Obama. I know what it's like to have a state wanting to repeal the health care law. I know what it's like to live in a state with failing education and hate toward immigrants. So believe me, I will PROUDLY vote and I will PROUDLY vote for the Democrats. In the above-linked interview with Rachel Maddow, Joe Biden quoted Truman:

"I'm not going to give them hell, I'll give them the truth and they'll think it's hell."

The truth is, if Dems stay home in November, we will have to deal will hell in Congress. That's just the way it is.

Don't Just Hit Send or I'll Just Hit You

POSTED BY JHW22

I received an email from someone just showing me what's going around -- no one is stupid enough to send me this crap as if it's true -- and I made that person PROMISE to send my response to the woman who sent the email. Here is my response, followed by the text of the email. All of my comments are in italics and blue.

When I see emails like this I have three options. I can ignore them. I can pass them on without checking any of the information within. I can reply with facts. As a responsible citizen who cares about this country I choose option 3. It's intolerable that emails like this circulate without people taking the time to check data, facts, original sources and so on. It's bad for the country that people so willingly believe/trust, an email written by a stranger that's been passed on so many times you don't even know anyone who knows anyone who knows the person that wrote it.

So I started addressing each of these one by one (all of my comments are in blue in the original email below). It took me a LONG time. It takes hard work figuring out where the initial claim originates so as to verify the facts. And once that initial claim is somewhat located in some sense of reality, it takes true effort to articulate and cite sources to show where the original email is 100% wrong or has the facts so twisted that it may as well be 100% wrong. So no wonder people add a little sentence of fear and hit send. It's so much easier to do that than to actually seek the truth.

But I got worn out from debunking this stuff. I spent HOURS doing the right thing of finding information. And it occurred to me: why? People who pass these emails around don't want truth. They want to pass on crap as truth because it makes them feel angry and they want others to join them in their anger. And I joined in that anger. But my anger is not at the lies in the email, but at those who pass them on to their friends and family. My anger is at the people who act like they love America as they divide it into those who want to be afraid over lies and those who want to find out the truth.

We just went through eight years where a President said he was a fiscal conservative while creating the very tax cuts that were known to have been bad for the deficit. And now the same party wants to pretend that the effects of those tax cuts weren't so bad and want to blame Democrats for saying they only want to extend the cuts to the middle class. We had an administration who lied about WMD's, thus throwing us into a lie-based war that further added to the deficit. So why, why on Earth, do we allow the people who supported those policies continue to spread lies and manipulate facts to the point of pathetic emails that don't cite sources, leave key sentences out of quoted paragraphs and make sweeping generalizations about fractions of an issue while ignoring the overall benefit of the bigger picture, to pass on lies without a fight?

So even though I ran out of steam and didn't address each issue in this email, I can proudly say that I tried. I did the work. I spent the time finding the truth. Perhaps the people who pass these emails on will take the time to do a reasonable and honest amount of research on their own (and Googling phrases doesn't count because with emails like this, you'll see it plastered all over the internet and the same text repeated 5,000 times is still the same text and not 5,000 supporting documents). But I have a feeling that no one else will take the personal responsibility of researching because perhaps they are afraid they will find out that emails lie. That people who start them have an agenda. That people who just forward them would rather believe an unreliable email than actually take part in the civic duty of being properly informed.

Here is what the President said today (it says a lot about his agenda, the state of the Republican party and the people who would rather read an email and believe it, than find out what's really happening in America):

"And there’s currently a jobs bill before Congress that would do two big things for small business owners: cut more taxes and make available more loans. It would help them get the credit they need, and eliminate capital gains taxes on key investments so they have more incentive to invest right now. And it would accelerate $55 billion of tax relief to encourage American businesses, small and large, to expand their investments over the next 14 months.

Unfortunately, this bill has been languishing in the Senate for months, held up by a partisan minority that won’t even allow it to go to a vote. That makes no sense. This bill is fully paid for. It won’t add to the deficit. And there is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics." 

I hope that this email will be shared as a reminder that our Founding Fathers didn't take the easy route. They didn't copy and paste or pass on someone else's fact as theirs. No. They were the elite of the elite. They were intelligent and serious and had more integrity in their discourse. They believed in doing the hard work of thinking and writing at levels Americans can't comprehend today. In honor of them, I implore people to DO THE WORK. READ. LEARN. And for Pete's sake, don't just hit send!

Jennifer

ORIGINAL EMAIL ADDRESSES DELETED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT AND THE STUPID

Just want ALL to be informed………………………CHANGES are coming very sooooooon.
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.
These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

First of all, these taxes, which are set to expire were designed to expire because they were so bad for the deficit. They used the dreaded reconciliation process to get votes on the tax cuts but because of reconciliation rules, the cuts had to expire after ten years unless renewed. President Obama has said that he will ONLY ALLOW the cuts to expire for the top 2% of income earners. Therefore all those expiration listed are as Republicans drafted but NOT how President Obama has said (while campaigning and as President) he will allow it to work. IF he allowed the entire set of taxes to expire, the first part of this ridiculous email would be true. HOWEVER, President Obama has committed to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $200k. This email is disingenuous to say the least. In fact, Obama wants to make the cuts PERMANENT for 95% of Americans.

Here is a link that is far more honest than this email as to the tax cuts. And the guy isn't an Obama lover.

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15% - The 25% bracket rises to 28% - The 28% bracket rises to 31% - The 33% bracket rises to 36% - The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

Since I think links are important, here is a link to the health care bill as finalized as well as a summary provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

FSA won't cover OTC meds NOT prescribed by a doctor. They never should have. I think it's funny that we don't want big government but people want to take a tax credit for buying pain reliever or allergy medicine. The abundance of OTC meds that are store brand or so cheap to produce that they cost pennies means that you would have to buy a boat load of vitamins and aspirin to even make a dent in a dent in a dent in the FSA. What this email doesn't point out is that anything like Claritin OTC which does cost more than the average OTC can actually meet the FSA requirements because you CAN have a doctor write a prescription for it. You CAN have a doctor write a prescription for aspirin. I wish everyone on this email chain would calculate how much they actually spend on OTC meds and then calculate how much of a tax savings they get now for paying for it out of an FSA. They'd be shocked at the fraction of a dent this makes in their lives -- especially if they have doctor's orders to use it.

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The FSA was changed to include a limit in part because of the small number of people who actually utilize it or maximize the dollars they withhold. What this email fails to mention is that companies have historically set limits on their own even though the fed govt didn't require them to do so. This email makes it appear as if all families could withhold $14,000 when the actual average is $5,000. By the way, as of 2009, "Health care flexible spending accounts are offered by 27 percent of all employers but 85 percent of those with 500 or more employees. The average employee contribution is $1,424, well below the $2,500 cap that has been suggested in health reform proposals." 

Also, families won't be able to put the same amount in the FSAs HOWEVER they will be able to take a deduction on the money spent as childcare and medical expenses. So they may not get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for a daycare or special school for special needs kids or doctor's appointments or medication but they will be able to add all of that to their out-of pocket childcare and medical expenses for the year. On that point alone it's a wash in the end. Let's also not forget that a lot of special needs kids don't have health insurance or fairly priced insurance. The ObamacaresAboutAmerica Health Care Law will lower premiums and copays and cover preventative care, thus for many families making the FSA cap moot. In fact, the OVERALL health care law will likely end up saving more money for these particular special needs families. Oh, and let's not forget that in his 2011 budget, Obama asked to DOUBLE the child care tax credit for families making less than $85k/year in addition to more funding for child care programs, thus lowering the financial burden on families with children. I guess, if you think about it, the only way to prevent that from happening would be to vote against Obama's budget.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Now let's look at this WHOPPER of a claim. Yes, the "left-leaning Tax Policy Center" said that AMT taxpaying families will rise from 4 million to 28.5 million. They said it in 2007!! They ALSO said, "Two primary culprits are responsible for this impending explosion: the failure to index the AMT for inflation and the 2001–2006 tax cuts." The original email didn't include a link, so I will provide one here. 

The CBO did say the same thing THIS year: "If current law remains unchanged, the role of the AMT in the tax system will expand rapidly over time. With the expiration of a temporary increase in the AMT’s exemption amounts, the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT will jump from 4 million in calendar year 2009 to 27 million in 2010." They also said, "series of reductions in the regular income tax enacted starting in 2001 would have caused even more returns to be subject to the AMT were it not for the series of temporary adjustments (often called 'patches') that lawmakers made to the alternative tax" -- meaning that we are constantly needing patches. The patches are why emails like this circulate every year scaring people about the AMT because each year the patch from the year before expires.

So let's look at what the "left-leaning" Tax Policy Center said THIS year in regards to the 2010/2011 budget presented by Obama: "The president proposes to make permanent the 2009 AMT parameters—exemptions, rate brackets, and phaseout thresholds—and index them for inflation. That would remove a significant source of uncertainty about taxation and prevent inflation from pushing large numbers of taxpayers onto the AMT in future years. Most of the benefits of the change would go to taxpayers with relatively high incomes: about three-fourths of the tax cut in 2012 would go to households with income over $100,000. Over half of taxpayers with income between $200,000 and $500,000 would see their tax bills drop by an average of over $1,800, raising their after-tax income by more than 0.9 percent." 

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

It's harder addressing a claim when there is no basis for the claim, no link, law, article, nada. So the best I can figure is this is in reference to the H.R.2847 Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act which DOUBLES deductions on property MAKING the deduction up to $250k. This bill DOUBLED the original limit of $125k and is set to expire by 2011. So the claim that "businesses can normally expense" is based on NOW which is a doubling of the "normal" $125k. Here is what the IRS says:

"HIRE and Section 179 Deduction

A qualifying taxpayer can choose to treat the cost of certain property as an expense and deduct it in the year the property is placed in service instead of depreciating it over several years. This property is frequently referred to as section 179 property.

The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act of 2010 extends the dates of the IRC Section 179 temporary increase in limitations on expensing of depreciable business assets.

Under HIRE, qualifying businesses can continue to expense up to $250,000 of section 179 property for the 2010 tax year. Without HIRE, the 2010 expensing limit for section 179 property would have been $125,000.

The $250,000 amount provided under the new law is reduced, but not below zero, if the cost of all section 179 property placed in service by the taxpayer during the tax year exceeds $800,000." 

You can find the HIRE bill here.

Now, let's address the "This will be cut all the way down to $25,000" claim and ask, "WHAT?" Again, this is why claims that have zero back-up documentation are such a pain to address. Where did that dollar amount come from? Can you tell from reading that paragraph? No. Because the person who wrote it wants to scared and angry rather than informed. So let's take a stab at it and see if one of these two options makes sense (Both of these potential sources behind that mysterious $25,000 amount are from the IRS's explanation of the Section 179 Deduction on depreciation):

1) "You cannot elect to expense more than $25,000 of the cost of any heavy sport utility vehicle (SUV) and certain other vehicles placed in service during the tax year." ("However, the $25,000 limit does not apply to any vehicle:

Designed to seat more than nine passengers behind the driver's seat,

Equipped with a cargo area (either open or enclosed by a cap) of at least six feet in interior length that is not readily accessible from the passenger compartment, or

That has an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device, does not have seating rearward of the driver's seat, and has no body section protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield.")

2) "Example. In 2009, you bought and placed in service a $275,000 tractor and a $25,000 circular saw for your business. You elect to deduct $225,000 for the tractor and the entire $25,000 for the saw, a total of $250,000. This is the maximum amount you can deduct. Your $25,000 deduction for the saw completely recovered its cost. Your basis for depreciation is zero. The basis for depreciation of your tractor is $50,000. You figure this by subtracting your $225,000 section 179 deduction for the tractor from the $275,000 cost of the tractor."

And what exactly IS depreciation? According to Business.gov it means:

"If property you acquire to use in your business is expected to last more than one year, you generally cannot deduct the entire cost as a business expense in the year you acquire it. You must spread the cost over more than one tax year and deduct part of it each year on Form 1040, Schedule C. This method of deducting the cost of business property is called depreciation." That's all. It just means you take the deduction over time -- the time you USE it.

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

When someone tells you there are "literally scores of tax hikes: shouldn't the "literally" list "scores" and their sources? It is "literally" annoying that they don't. And if you think about it, one definition of "scores" is: A grievance that is harbored and requires satisfaction. Well, I require satisfaction on that claim that I harbor grievance over. Since there is a vague reference to "the loss of ... research and experimentation tax credit" let's see what that could possibly mean. Well, again I will refer to Obama's 2011 budget in which he requested the R&E tax credit be made PERMANENT as well as fund "scores" of R&D opportunities. I guess, if you think about it, the only way to prevent that from happening would be to vote against Obama's budget.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Again, no citations. In a statement about education, you would think the person who wrote this email would do what every teacher told him to do: "Show your work", "list your resources", "support your claims". But nope. The writer of this email scares you while giving you no way to confirm whether the claims are fact or fiction. You could search the internet for days and never prove a negative. But let's give it a shot. Oh, yeah. The writer is making the ASSumption that Obama and Congress are going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for ALL Americans. Again, you would have to buy into the myth that Obama is going to allow all of Bush's tax cuts to expire which there is absolutely no support for. None. Obama has said and continues to say that he will extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less that $200k. That's all that this is based on.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.
PDF Version Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1
Now your insurance is INCOME on your W2's......
One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.

Here is a research of the summaries.....

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

This is my favorite part because it's big and bold and yellow and WRONG. In regards to the Kiplinger's article the email says to go read, it's funny that the person who wrote the email left out a key sentence from Ms. Pryde's article: "3. A requirement that businesses include the value of the health care benefits they provide to employees on W-2s, beginning with W-2s for 2011. The amount reported is not considered taxable income." That's right: NOT CONSIDERED TAXABLE INCOME!! Why would they leave that out of the email? Because they know most people will NOT go to the article itself. They rely on people being scared and lazy and just passing on an email without digging deeper. This alone should have been the one reason to not counter each myth or distortion but it was fun doing it anyway. Since the original email didn't provide a link, I will.

I Call Bullshit

The oil is "gone"?

The “vast majority” of crude from BP Plc’s damaged Gulf of Mexico well is gone and the rest is being broken down by waves and bacteria, reducing the threat of further pollution from the largest maritime oil spill, White House energy adviser Carol Browner said.

“The vast majority of the oil has been contained, it’s been burned, it’s been cleaned,” Browner said on CBS’s “Early Show” today. The remaining oil “will weather, it will break down naturally. Mother Nature will do her part.”

Where did it "go"?

Sorry, but there is no possible way that 75% of the oil has been cleaned up, evaporated or broken down especially when the estimate was reassessed just this past Monday to 170 million gallons of oil. How could all that oil be cleaned up when President Obama has been refusing international help because of the Jones Act? Oh, right, that was bullshit too.

And even if we were to take the oil is 75% "gone" talking point at face value, at 170 million gallons spilled, that still leaves 42.5 million gallons out there. As Bob Cesca points out, that's still nearly five times the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill. And you can still find oil there just by turning over a rock. And this doesn't even begin to address the unknown environmental consequences of the possibly millions of gallons of dispersant they used to break up the oil.

Obama Daily

POSTED BY JHW22

The Obama team has been active in communicating, they just choose to communicate in less traditional ways. That was key to their win in November 2008 and is something they continue to prioritize in their communication strategy today. They are active on WhiteHouse.gov, Facebook and Twitter -- posting speeches and statements by a variety of advisers and staff on a variety of topics. They hold online Q & A's and live-stream conferences and press events.

They are sharing information. Are you getting it?

Today I received an email with their newest form of outreach, The White House Daily Snapshot, an email update that provides daily schedules for Obama and Biden as well as top stories from The White House Blog.

So if you want to stay on top of what's happening, here's one more tool provided by the Obama administration.

Here is what today's update looks like:

Photo of the Day



A guest follows the remarks of speakers with the assistance of a sign language interpreter, during an event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the South Lawn of the White House, July 26, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton)

View More White House Photos

Today’s Schedule

Starting this week, the President and Vice President's daily public schedules will be published on WhiteHouse.gov. Check out the schedule here. You can subscribe to the schedule via RSS feed or add it to your calendar using iCal.
All times are Eastern Daylight Time.
9:30 AM: The President receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
10:00 AM: The President receives the Economic Daily Briefing
11:00 AM: The President meets with bipartisan members of Congress
12:00 PM: The President delivers a statement to the press
1:30 PM: The Vice President delivers remarks at Grand Canyon National Park
1:30 PM: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
2:00 PM: Clean Energy Economy Forum - Energy Security
3:05 PM: The President congratulates the Warner Robins Softball World Series Champions
4:00 PM: The President meets with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner
4:30 PM: The President meets with Secretary of Defense Gates
7:00 PM: The President attends a DNC Fundraising Dinner
Indicates events that will be live streamed on WhiteHouse.gov/live. 

In Case You Missed It

Here are some of the top stories from the White House blog.

President Obama on Citizens United: "Imagine the Power This Will Give Special Interests Over Politicians" (includes video)

President Obama and Vice President Biden’s Daily Public Schedules Now Online
Reaching Out to Rural America: Meeting with Students at the Delaware State Fair

Shirley Sherrod

POSTED BY JHW22

I am livid. So livid I can't possibly formulate a proper post. So instead I will write free-form and hope it all makes sense when I am finished -- even to me.

Breitbart uses film editing as his weapon.
Fox News uses distortion as their weapon.

The left-wing media like the Huffington Post and groups like the NAACP see the weapon and throw their hands up.
The Department of Agriculture and the White House throw their hands up.

We are at the mercy of the right-wing media when they can use their constant hate, lies and fear-mongering to extort the citizens, the media and the government to do dance as if bullets are being fired at our feet.

Shirley Sherrod is the personal victim of the right-wing's lies and the left-wing's capitulation.
We are all victims of the aftermath.

I want Shirley Sherrod reinstated by President Obama and apologized to by ANYONE who perpetuated the lie about her. Yet, even when the truth is out, people will believe the lie and think the truth is the lie. It will be too late. And the people who will hold on to the lie are dangerous people. They are the ones who thrive on right-wing weaponry and chaos.

Now Fox is acting as if they had nothing to do with this and are going to pull the wool over their own viewers' eyes. And people will believe that lie, too.

Part of me keeps saying, please let this be a Rosa Parks moment. Please tell me that we will all learn from this and stop the cycle of destructive rhetoric and fear-based reaction. Please tell me that this honorable woman will be an example of how we should ALL learn from our personal struggles and see people as people. Let the destruction of her reputation result in a phoenix moment for her. Let her rise from the damage as the person we refer to when we say, "I beat back my personal '-isms' and rose above them." Let Shirley Sherrod be the person who forces us to beat back the cowardice and discuss racism in America.

And let's beg of our friends and family to THINK before they allow thirty-eight seconds to define a person or a story.

Here's Shirley Sherrod's entire speech.
Here is Rachel Maddow's thorough take on the chaos.
Here is the story unfolding on CNN.


EDITOR'S UPDATE (7/21/10, 2:45pm): ColorOfChange.org is petitioning President Obama to reinstate Shirley Sherrod. It only takes a minute to fill out a form and do the right thing.

Obama Can't Close The Deal

... Or at least that's what anti-Obama voices would like you to believe. Rachel Maddow gives us a comprehensive list.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

GOP Laughingstocks

Seriously? This is what passes for a legitimate political party in present day America? And people fall for it!

Three months after health care reform was first rolled out, House Republicans are claiming that the legislation has not lived up to promises.

In a report issued on Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner said Obama's health care reform legislation has already failed on multiple fronts.

Yes, because as we all know, Medicare failed in its first 90 days as well.

Is Rahm Done?

If true, I can only view this as good news.

Washington insiders are saying that the White House chief of staff will quit his post within six to eight months because he is frustrated by Obama's closest advisers' idealism and their unwillingness to push through legislation. "Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of the most high profile jobs in U.S. politics," the London Telegraph reported.

Fear May Win Again

The terrorists have already won. Even if any planned terrorist attack is thwarted, just the thought of another possible attack inside the US has so freaked out some of the public and elected officials that they are willing to drop Constitutional rights at the snap of a finger as is being demonstrated with the 9/11 trial location.

In a potential reversal, White House advisers are close to recommending that President Barack Obama opt for military tribunals for self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed...

In addition to local opposition to a trial [in New York City due to costs, security and logistical concerns], the administration faces pressure on its goal of closing Guantanamo on another front. Republicans in Congress have proposed barring prosecutions of terrorism defendants in federal courts or in reformed military commissions located in the United States.

...The Obama administration views civilian trials for terrorists as an important demonstration of the U.S. commitment to rule of law. Officials also have cited the numerous terrorism trials already held successfully in U.S. criminal courts.

..."If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values," said American Civil Liberties Union Anthony D. Romero. "Even with recent improvements, the military commissions system is incapable of handling complicated terrorism cases and achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure and fear-mongering. He should hold firm and keep these prosecutions in federal court, where they belong."

Agreed. If there is no way to be able to hold this trial in a civilian court because of logistics, then they should at least attempt to have some kind of civilian trial at a military base as an end around to costs and security.

Using the Federal Court System the right thing to do and it's also successful and has been used in over 300 terrorism trials by the previous administration, which has been conveniently forgotten by the opposition party. Not only would this be a political loss for the Obama administration but more importantly, a tragic loss for the rule of law.