REPUBLICAN REVIEWS, IN MY MIND, MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS?
A short time ago at a meeting with a dozen Republicans an interesting topic emerged. The topic was how much interest is there in social issues. What is a Republican’s stance in Massachusetts on any social topic, whatever it is, here or nationwide? How should we address it? On one issue I even heard, "Let’s ignore it and maybe it will go away." "It is a third rail, Independents will distrust us." It started my thinking process of self worth, are we that unique?
My feelings are not shared by all my Republican peers. First, Shakespeare’s, "To thyself, be true." To me, means if it goes against my grain, why am I doing it? Second, I keep hearing about ‘reaching across the aisle’ and I take that to mean bi-partisanship. Third, where is it written that if I say I do not agree with the Democratic proposal I am stone walling government, I am mean and selfish and depriving someone of something. When I am really advocating not spending money we do not have, or just not condoning socialism.
Maybe it is time we took account of ourselves and what we stand for. Do we know? Do we understand that Republican principles are Limited Government, Lower Taxes and Local Control. Of course, what each segment means to us? Let’s explore that.
Massachusetts, by nature has been controlled by a Democratic Legislature for at least sixty years of my life. Does anyone remember when Democrats reached across the aisle? I don’t. They’ve always proposed whatever they damn well pleased and thrown the crumbs to the Republicans. In doing so they have dumped on tax payers. Many of us have cowered in the corner and just said, "Thank you," or replied, "We will try to meet you in the middle, good friends." It is almost like saying "Beat me up some more. I like it." We know their idea of ‘middle’ is somewhere around nine o’clock their time. Some Republicans, when in a position to make a difference have failed miserably. They find out how to play ball? Republican mediocracy? That makes me ill.
Past Republicans leaders, good people, if they were doing so well why didn’t the people support the party? Why did they leave? Was it for the freebies the Democrats throw out with the threat that if they are voted out the mean spirited Republicans will stop them? Or, is it they are both the same so I do not want to be part of either one? Is it because the unions and the government regard every job as a partisan job? Republicans need not apply, or just waste your time? Don’t bite the hand that enables you? Was there ever a time in Massachusetts that the Republicans were really conservative? I don’t ever remember it.
In Massachusetts, if I am a candidate running for office, I must court the Independent vote. Republicans are a minority, somewhere around 13%. Winning without the Independent vote is unlikely. I wonder, is it more attractive for a candidate to appear close to the issues that the state’s Democratic agenda feeds us? Should we contrive to be our own party and not Democrat Lite? If I was an Independent making the choice of two candidates both close to the ‘middle.’ One candidate pledges jobs and legislature congeniality, my vote could be swayed I think. Especially, if there is not a significant difference between the candidates except maybe hair style. Is anyone else feeling despair when they see the number of Republicans that turn out to vote? Could it be the middle ground our candidates dance on? Isn’t there a need for some criteria that says who we are?
What about complete contrast to the Democratic agenda? A platform that says previous representation no matter how good it was did not come without cost. Costs, that are only affordable off the backs of the taxpayer. A discernible message that is clear. That every social agenda has gone the way of the Democrats. It usually means higher taxes and higher user fees on every aspect of our lives and the result is failing government. So much for the Lower Taxes of our Republican agenda. They always flip us ‘It was a bipartisan bill with a ninety/ten bipartisan decision. What about, "I will veto every spending bill unless it does not have new tax funding and is funded?" What about, stressing the similarities to Greece and California and the recklessness of run away spending.
In the last 40 years the size of our government in Massachusetts has gone from approximately forty thousand state employees up over approximately eighty thousand, 100%. Our legal citizenry has gone from six million to approximately seven million a 16% increase. This will not take into account the expansion of federal or municipal employed workers in Massachusetts, I will leave that to other researchers. I would think with new technology we are using every state administrative office would be smaller? I guess that diminishes both Limited Government and Lower tax?
How many are following the Housatonic River cleanup debacle? I just threw that in the discussion for local control. Or, has anyone attempted to start a business lately or build anything that requires state permits? I called the DEA once to complain about toxins being thrown in Goose Pond and was threatened that I was a trouble maker by some pencil necked paper-pusher. How can it be, a communications company can dictate how co-axial cable is installed in communities? What citizen did we help with that brain storm? Is it the company, or the union control? Or, is it Corning that makes the fiber-optic cable? Take your pick. They all have their hand in our pocket.
Maybe this negotiation across the aisle should be a little more firm footed so the voters know what the Republican agenda should be. Just maybe, what attracts people that have left the party or insist on being Independent is a ‘broader decision?’ I don’t think they want to be neutral, I think they do not like either party. Maybe people are sick of living in a corrupt society where the legislature wraps everything in bacon just before they are indicted. Do we even think of this dilemma when we know the deplorable status of state and community budgeting? Oh, I know, we are doing really well, then I think of the eighteen billion in unfunded state pensions that are not quite up to snuff. Just raise the taxes and services we’ll still vote for you, until you are indicted.
Just my thoughts and I welcome comment.
Semper fi ...... peterR
Friday, March 16, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
I'M IN FROM THE COLD!
Excuses, are like friends, everyone should have one. Mine? I've had more internet problems then the law should allow. First, the computer internet and then stabilizing new accounts. Computers are a blessing and they can be a nightmare. I would like to blame it all on a conspiracy and of course that would explain some of the bizarre events. Too long to get into.
The good side is, we are up and running. We have used the last few weeks to help restore the Berkshire County Republican Association to greatness. Our paid membership had depleted, there were problems very much like the national problems of more money going out than coming in. I believe we have a handle on that now. We are after all Republicans. If you are reading this and have visited our new website of: http://www.berkshiregop.org/ you will be surprised.
I am sure if you are a member or have been a previous member you have received several emails inviting you to participate? Please do. We have been beating the brush for a Few Good Republicans. We'll keep a light on for you.
We are back on board just in time. So, let's start, I was reminded today that “We have to stand for something or we’ll fall for anything.”
The last few days have been very intriguing. Rush Limbaugh the alleged indigenous leader of the Republican Party was terminated from our local station WBEC. WBEC was one of two (the other was located in Hawaii) nationwide that changed their programming to get rid of Rush. Rush's plight was a controversial statement that he has since apologized for.
At first glance Rush is on shaky grounds for being a foul mouth when attempting to defend the religious assault on the U.S. Constitution. His stance, the same as many, was that to provide paid health care with funds provided by individuals that had a conscious religious objection was not right. It violated the first amendment of the Constitution. If we did not provide for well being of the Co-ed’s sex life it would be the demise of Roe vs. Wade. Well, I guess it is silly? Thinking it is not is almost as dumb as trying to pass off the story the Insurance Company will pay for hundreds of employees to have their sex life financed for free. We would like this to be a female issue but I have not heard that they would pay for vasectomies so maybe it is a gender bias issue? Not one word on that?
Anyhow, WBEC saw fit to terminate Rush. I have been a Republican for the last four years. Rush’s name has come up four times, total. Somebody besides some dumb Democrat should have told me he is my leader. Rush has some brilliant theories and delivers them to a vast audience of people that are intrigued with his talent and research. WBEC is a privately owned company so they are not obligated to anyone as to programming. There are many people that listened to Rush and I doubt the verbiage Rush mis-spoke was the worst that the administrators of WBEC had ever heard. I wonder if the people that demanded Rush’s removal will now listen to the replacement program? I doubt it. I do believe the sponsors of that time slot will now get 50 percent of the listeners or potential customers from their advertising. Good business move by WBEC, I wonder if they are passing the savings onto the sponsors?
I do not remember them denouncing the vulgar slurs offered against Sara Palin or Michelle Bachman. I am glad that WBEC got their Puritan Morals in line with the times. I am just pleased that their concern for the community took this drastic step to protect me and defend the offended. Who in their right mind really took it to heart that was a fan of Rush? Silently? Exactly, nobody, it is a non-issue, people that are not fans are saying they will not listen anymore. Well, we did not expect them to. If the truths are known probably there are thousands agreeing, of course as our political correctness commands the way we act in society today few will admit to it. Am I protecting women? I certainly am, in remembrance of my mom, boy, what she would have said. Rush would blush.
I am so disgusted, maybe I’ll go to NYC and camp out in the park and crap on a few police cars. How silly, the Tea Party does not do that, it is the other side.
Semper fi,
peterR
The good side is, we are up and running. We have used the last few weeks to help restore the Berkshire County Republican Association to greatness. Our paid membership had depleted, there were problems very much like the national problems of more money going out than coming in. I believe we have a handle on that now. We are after all Republicans. If you are reading this and have visited our new website of: http://www.berkshiregop.org/ you will be surprised.
I am sure if you are a member or have been a previous member you have received several emails inviting you to participate? Please do. We have been beating the brush for a Few Good Republicans. We'll keep a light on for you.
We are back on board just in time. So, let's start, I was reminded today that “We have to stand for something or we’ll fall for anything.”
The last few days have been very intriguing. Rush Limbaugh the alleged indigenous leader of the Republican Party was terminated from our local station WBEC. WBEC was one of two (the other was located in Hawaii) nationwide that changed their programming to get rid of Rush. Rush's plight was a controversial statement that he has since apologized for.
At first glance Rush is on shaky grounds for being a foul mouth when attempting to defend the religious assault on the U.S. Constitution. His stance, the same as many, was that to provide paid health care with funds provided by individuals that had a conscious religious objection was not right. It violated the first amendment of the Constitution. If we did not provide for well being of the Co-ed’s sex life it would be the demise of Roe vs. Wade. Well, I guess it is silly? Thinking it is not is almost as dumb as trying to pass off the story the Insurance Company will pay for hundreds of employees to have their sex life financed for free. We would like this to be a female issue but I have not heard that they would pay for vasectomies so maybe it is a gender bias issue? Not one word on that?
Anyhow, WBEC saw fit to terminate Rush. I have been a Republican for the last four years. Rush’s name has come up four times, total. Somebody besides some dumb Democrat should have told me he is my leader. Rush has some brilliant theories and delivers them to a vast audience of people that are intrigued with his talent and research. WBEC is a privately owned company so they are not obligated to anyone as to programming. There are many people that listened to Rush and I doubt the verbiage Rush mis-spoke was the worst that the administrators of WBEC had ever heard. I wonder if the people that demanded Rush’s removal will now listen to the replacement program? I doubt it. I do believe the sponsors of that time slot will now get 50 percent of the listeners or potential customers from their advertising. Good business move by WBEC, I wonder if they are passing the savings onto the sponsors?
I do not remember them denouncing the vulgar slurs offered against Sara Palin or Michelle Bachman. I am glad that WBEC got their Puritan Morals in line with the times. I am just pleased that their concern for the community took this drastic step to protect me and defend the offended. Who in their right mind really took it to heart that was a fan of Rush? Silently? Exactly, nobody, it is a non-issue, people that are not fans are saying they will not listen anymore. Well, we did not expect them to. If the truths are known probably there are thousands agreeing, of course as our political correctness commands the way we act in society today few will admit to it. Am I protecting women? I certainly am, in remembrance of my mom, boy, what she would have said. Rush would blush.
I am so disgusted, maybe I’ll go to NYC and camp out in the park and crap on a few police cars. How silly, the Tea Party does not do that, it is the other side.
Semper fi,
peterR
Monday, January 2, 2012
Our Congretional Dollars and how they add up
The following is some interesting discourse relayed thanks to H. Bishop, former Marine. It offers some insight as to the characteristics of debate over our Congress and financial decisions made by the lawmakers. I don't often look to the Times for material but this is even handed.
During the 2010 elections I was speaking to a candidate for Congress and he informed me that once elected a member of Congress had in excess of a 4 million dollar budget to run their office. I was astounded as the mental math equated the total for the House to be in excess of several hundred millions of dollars. This does not take into account the special committees and travel perks. It does give us an idea of what we are getting for our five percent approval rating of their work.
Semper fi,
peterR
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
New York Times
updated 12/27/2011
WASHINGTON — When Representative Ed Pastor was first elected to Congress two decades ago, he was comfortably ensconced in the middle class. Mr. Pastor, a Democrat from Arizona, held $100,000 or so in savings accounts in the mid-1990s and had a retirement pension, but like many Americans, he also owed the banks nearly as much in loans.
Today, Mr. Pastor, a miner’s son and a former high school teacher, is a member of a not-so-exclusive club: Capitol Hill millionaires. That group has grown in recent years to include nearly half of all members of Congress — 250 in all — and the wealth gap between lawmakers and their constituents appears to be growing quickly, even as Congress debates unemployment benefits, possible cuts in food stamps and a “millionaire’s tax.”
Mr. Pastor buys a Powerball lottery ticket every weekend and says he does not consider himself rich. Indeed, within the halls of Congress, where the median net worth is $913,000 and climbing, he is not. He is a rank-and-file millionaire. But compared with the country at large, where the median net worth is $100,000 and has dropped significantly since 2004, he and most of his fellow lawmakers are true aristocrats.
Largely insulated from the country’s economic downturn since 2008, members of Congress — many of them among the “1 percenters” denounced by Occupy Wall Street protesters — have gotten much richer even as most of the country has become much poorer in the last six years, according to an analysis by The New York Times based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group.
Congress has never been a place for paupers. From plantation owners in the pre-Civil War era to industrialists in the early 1900s to ex-Wall Street financiers and Internet executives today, it has long been populated with the rich, including scions of families like the Guggenheims, Hearsts, Kennedys and Rockefellers.
But rarely has the divide appeared so wide, or the public contrast so stark, between lawmakers and those they represent. The wealth gap may go largely unnoticed in good times. “But with the American public feeling all this economic pain, people just resent it more,” said Alan J. Ziobrowski, a professor at Georgia State who studied lawmakers’ stock investments.
There is broad debate about just why the wealth gap appears to be growing. For starters, the prohibitive costs of political campaigning may discourage the less affluent from even considering a candidacy. Beyond that, loose ethics controls, shrewd stock picks, profitable land deals, favorable tax laws, inheritances and even marriages to wealthy spouses are all cited as possible explanations for the rising fortunes on Capitol Hill.
What is clear is that members of Congress are getting richer compared not only with the average American worker, but also with other very rich Americans.
While the median net worth of members of Congress jumped 15 percent from 2004 to 2010, the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans remained essentially flat. For all Americans, median net worth dropped 8 percent during that period, based on inflation-adjusted data from Moody’s.
Analytics.
Going back further, the median wealth of House members grew some two and a half times between 1984 and 2009 in inflation-adjusted dollars, while the wealth of the average American family has actually declined slightly in that same time period, according to data cited by The Washington Post in an article published Monday on its Web site.
Rarefied air
With millionaire status now the norm, the rarefied air in the Capitol these days is $100 million. That lofty level appears to have been surpassed by at least 10 members, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and former auto alarm magnate who is worth somewhere between $195 million and $700 million. (Because federal law requires lawmakers to disclose their assets only in broad dollar ranges, more precise estimates are impossible.)
Their wealth has created occasional political problems for Congress’s richest.
Mr. Issa, for instance, has faced outside scrutiny because of the overlap of his Congressional work and outside interests, including extensive investments with Wall Street firms like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, as well as land holdings in his San Diego district. In one case, he obtained some $800,000 in federal earmarks for a road-widening project running along his commercial property.
Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, set off an uproar last year when it was disclosed that he had docked his $7 million, 76-foot yacht not in his home state but in neighboring Rhode Island, which has no sales or use tax on pleasure boats. (Mr. Kerry, worth at least $181 million, voluntarily paid $400,000 in Massachusetts taxes after public criticism.)
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, was challenged about her wealth, as much as $196 million, by a member of her own party a few weeks ago. Representative Laura Richardson, a California Democrat who is among the poorest members of Congress with as much as $464,000 in debt, attacked Ms. Pelosi at a closed-door Democratic caucus meeting for endorsing a Congressional pay freeze, according to a report in Politico that was confirmed by other members.
Ms. Richardson angrily told Ms. Pelosi that, unlike her, some members needed the raise. Members now make a base pay of $174,000 and would automatically get a cost-of-living adjustment unless they were to decide, for a third straight year, to pass it up. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the rising Congressional wealth fuels public doubts about whether members are more focused on their constituents’ interests or their own investment portfolios. “There’s always a concern that they can’t truly understand or relate to the hardships that their constituents feel — that rich people just don’t get it,” she said.
In an effort to gauge how directly the country’s economic problems affected lawmakers, The New York Times contacted the offices of the 534 current members (one seat is vacant) for an informal survey. It asked if they had close friends or family members who had lost jobs or homes since the 2008 downturn.
Only 18 members responded.
Half the respondents said they had close friends or relatives who lost homes, while the other half said their personal contact was limited to constituents who came for help. Two-thirds said they had close friends or relatives who had been laid off or had shut down a business during the downturn. The rest knew no one in that category personally.
Representative Anna G. Eshoo, a California Democrat who took part in the survey, said several cousins in their 40s and 50s whom she considers brothers and sisters lost their jobs recently. Without college degrees, none have found work, and they have emphasized to her the importance of unemployment benefits.
“Personal stories are very powerful because it’s not a theory,” Ms. Eshoo said. “It’s not talking points of a party. These are people experiencing the harshness of what is an economic depression for them.”
'Different lens'
Multimillionaires in Congress “view life through a different lens,” she said.
Ms. Eshoo herself has escaped the worries weighing on her cousins. While she reported being in debt in 2004, she is now worth an estimated $1.8 million, her financial reports show. She said the rise came mostly from the sale of a family home where she lived for 40 years.
“I was fortunate,” she said. “I’ve lived from paycheck to paycheck most of my life, and I’m a single mother.”
One likely cause of the rising wealth, political analysts say, is the growing cost of a political campaign. A successful Senate run cost on average nearly $10 million last year, and a successful House race was $1.4 million, significantly above past elections.
The prohibitive cost has inevitably drawn richer candidates who can help bankroll their own campaigns and attract donations from rich friends — while deterring less well-off candidates, political analysts say.
The data analyzed by The Times corroborated the idea that incoming members are in fact richer than those in the past. The freshman class of 106 members elected last year, including many Tea Party-backed Republicans, had a median net worth of $864,000 — an inflation-adjusted increase of 26 percent from the 2004 freshmen.
Once in Congress, members benefit from many financial perks unavailable to most Americans. Beyond a base salary of $174,000 — an increase of about 10 percent since 2004, somewhat less than inflation — members get extra pay for senior posts and generous medical and pension benefits, as well as accouterments of power often financed by taxpayers or their campaigns.
While the housing collapse nationwide has hurt many Americans, lawmakers still find the real estate sector the most popular place to park their money, statistics from the Center of Responsive Politics show, and members of Congress continue to profit from their investments there. Perhaps the most tantalizing but hotly debated factor in the rising wealth of Congress is lawmakers’ performance in the stock markets — and the question of whether they are using their access to confidential information to enrich themselves.
In a study completed this year, Mr. Ziobrowski at Georgia State and his colleagues found that House members saw the stocks they owned outperform the market by 6 percent a year. Their research from several years ago found that senators did even better, at 12 percent above average. The researchers attributed the performance to a “significant information advantage” that lawmakers hold by virtue of their positions and the fact they are not bound by insider-trading law.
However, a separate study last year by researchers at Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the portfolios of lawmakers actually performed somewhat worse than average investors. It found that members did do better when investing in companies in their home districts or associated with campaign donors — suggesting that they benefited from their political connections — but still not as well as the average investor.
While concerns go back decades about lawmakers trading on confidential information, the issue drew renewed attention with a new book on the topic, “Throw Them All Out” by Peter Schweizer, and a “60 Minutes” report in November. Both linked high-level briefings that Congressional leaders received on the 2008 financial crisis and on health care to their purchase and sale of certain stocks.
Members insisted that they never traded on information that was not public, and some Congressional leaders pointed out that their investments were in blind trusts managed by professional advisers. Nonetheless, the publicity led some 90 members of Congress to call anew for a ban on insider trading.
Mr. Pastor, the Arizona congressman, said he never relied on fancy stock investments to make money. He said the key to his good fortune was watching what he spends, paying off debts and, at age 68, collecting Social Security and a pension from his days as a county supervisor.
“I don’t see myself as a man of great wealth,” he said. “To say that I’m enjoying a millionaire’s lifestyle — well, I can tell you, I guess a millionaire’s income doesn’t go very far these days.”
The article, "Economic Downturn Took a Detour at Capitol Hill," first appeared in The New York Times.
Copyright © 2012 The New York Times
During the 2010 elections I was speaking to a candidate for Congress and he informed me that once elected a member of Congress had in excess of a 4 million dollar budget to run their office. I was astounded as the mental math equated the total for the House to be in excess of several hundred millions of dollars. This does not take into account the special committees and travel perks. It does give us an idea of what we are getting for our five percent approval rating of their work.
Semper fi,
peterR
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
New York Times
updated 12/27/2011
WASHINGTON — When Representative Ed Pastor was first elected to Congress two decades ago, he was comfortably ensconced in the middle class. Mr. Pastor, a Democrat from Arizona, held $100,000 or so in savings accounts in the mid-1990s and had a retirement pension, but like many Americans, he also owed the banks nearly as much in loans.
Today, Mr. Pastor, a miner’s son and a former high school teacher, is a member of a not-so-exclusive club: Capitol Hill millionaires. That group has grown in recent years to include nearly half of all members of Congress — 250 in all — and the wealth gap between lawmakers and their constituents appears to be growing quickly, even as Congress debates unemployment benefits, possible cuts in food stamps and a “millionaire’s tax.”
Mr. Pastor buys a Powerball lottery ticket every weekend and says he does not consider himself rich. Indeed, within the halls of Congress, where the median net worth is $913,000 and climbing, he is not. He is a rank-and-file millionaire. But compared with the country at large, where the median net worth is $100,000 and has dropped significantly since 2004, he and most of his fellow lawmakers are true aristocrats.
Largely insulated from the country’s economic downturn since 2008, members of Congress — many of them among the “1 percenters” denounced by Occupy Wall Street protesters — have gotten much richer even as most of the country has become much poorer in the last six years, according to an analysis by The New York Times based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group.
Congress has never been a place for paupers. From plantation owners in the pre-Civil War era to industrialists in the early 1900s to ex-Wall Street financiers and Internet executives today, it has long been populated with the rich, including scions of families like the Guggenheims, Hearsts, Kennedys and Rockefellers.
But rarely has the divide appeared so wide, or the public contrast so stark, between lawmakers and those they represent. The wealth gap may go largely unnoticed in good times. “But with the American public feeling all this economic pain, people just resent it more,” said Alan J. Ziobrowski, a professor at Georgia State who studied lawmakers’ stock investments.
There is broad debate about just why the wealth gap appears to be growing. For starters, the prohibitive costs of political campaigning may discourage the less affluent from even considering a candidacy. Beyond that, loose ethics controls, shrewd stock picks, profitable land deals, favorable tax laws, inheritances and even marriages to wealthy spouses are all cited as possible explanations for the rising fortunes on Capitol Hill.
What is clear is that members of Congress are getting richer compared not only with the average American worker, but also with other very rich Americans.
While the median net worth of members of Congress jumped 15 percent from 2004 to 2010, the net worth of the richest 10 percent of Americans remained essentially flat. For all Americans, median net worth dropped 8 percent during that period, based on inflation-adjusted data from Moody’s.
Analytics.
Going back further, the median wealth of House members grew some two and a half times between 1984 and 2009 in inflation-adjusted dollars, while the wealth of the average American family has actually declined slightly in that same time period, according to data cited by The Washington Post in an article published Monday on its Web site.
Rarefied air
With millionaire status now the norm, the rarefied air in the Capitol these days is $100 million. That lofty level appears to have been surpassed by at least 10 members, led by Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and former auto alarm magnate who is worth somewhere between $195 million and $700 million. (Because federal law requires lawmakers to disclose their assets only in broad dollar ranges, more precise estimates are impossible.)
Their wealth has created occasional political problems for Congress’s richest.
Mr. Issa, for instance, has faced outside scrutiny because of the overlap of his Congressional work and outside interests, including extensive investments with Wall Street firms like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, as well as land holdings in his San Diego district. In one case, he obtained some $800,000 in federal earmarks for a road-widening project running along his commercial property.
Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, set off an uproar last year when it was disclosed that he had docked his $7 million, 76-foot yacht not in his home state but in neighboring Rhode Island, which has no sales or use tax on pleasure boats. (Mr. Kerry, worth at least $181 million, voluntarily paid $400,000 in Massachusetts taxes after public criticism.)
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, was challenged about her wealth, as much as $196 million, by a member of her own party a few weeks ago. Representative Laura Richardson, a California Democrat who is among the poorest members of Congress with as much as $464,000 in debt, attacked Ms. Pelosi at a closed-door Democratic caucus meeting for endorsing a Congressional pay freeze, according to a report in Politico that was confirmed by other members.
Ms. Richardson angrily told Ms. Pelosi that, unlike her, some members needed the raise. Members now make a base pay of $174,000 and would automatically get a cost-of-living adjustment unless they were to decide, for a third straight year, to pass it up. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the rising Congressional wealth fuels public doubts about whether members are more focused on their constituents’ interests or their own investment portfolios. “There’s always a concern that they can’t truly understand or relate to the hardships that their constituents feel — that rich people just don’t get it,” she said.
In an effort to gauge how directly the country’s economic problems affected lawmakers, The New York Times contacted the offices of the 534 current members (one seat is vacant) for an informal survey. It asked if they had close friends or family members who had lost jobs or homes since the 2008 downturn.
Only 18 members responded.
Half the respondents said they had close friends or relatives who lost homes, while the other half said their personal contact was limited to constituents who came for help. Two-thirds said they had close friends or relatives who had been laid off or had shut down a business during the downturn. The rest knew no one in that category personally.
Representative Anna G. Eshoo, a California Democrat who took part in the survey, said several cousins in their 40s and 50s whom she considers brothers and sisters lost their jobs recently. Without college degrees, none have found work, and they have emphasized to her the importance of unemployment benefits.
“Personal stories are very powerful because it’s not a theory,” Ms. Eshoo said. “It’s not talking points of a party. These are people experiencing the harshness of what is an economic depression for them.”
'Different lens'
Multimillionaires in Congress “view life through a different lens,” she said.
Ms. Eshoo herself has escaped the worries weighing on her cousins. While she reported being in debt in 2004, she is now worth an estimated $1.8 million, her financial reports show. She said the rise came mostly from the sale of a family home where she lived for 40 years.
“I was fortunate,” she said. “I’ve lived from paycheck to paycheck most of my life, and I’m a single mother.”
One likely cause of the rising wealth, political analysts say, is the growing cost of a political campaign. A successful Senate run cost on average nearly $10 million last year, and a successful House race was $1.4 million, significantly above past elections.
The prohibitive cost has inevitably drawn richer candidates who can help bankroll their own campaigns and attract donations from rich friends — while deterring less well-off candidates, political analysts say.
The data analyzed by The Times corroborated the idea that incoming members are in fact richer than those in the past. The freshman class of 106 members elected last year, including many Tea Party-backed Republicans, had a median net worth of $864,000 — an inflation-adjusted increase of 26 percent from the 2004 freshmen.
Once in Congress, members benefit from many financial perks unavailable to most Americans. Beyond a base salary of $174,000 — an increase of about 10 percent since 2004, somewhat less than inflation — members get extra pay for senior posts and generous medical and pension benefits, as well as accouterments of power often financed by taxpayers or their campaigns.
While the housing collapse nationwide has hurt many Americans, lawmakers still find the real estate sector the most popular place to park their money, statistics from the Center of Responsive Politics show, and members of Congress continue to profit from their investments there. Perhaps the most tantalizing but hotly debated factor in the rising wealth of Congress is lawmakers’ performance in the stock markets — and the question of whether they are using their access to confidential information to enrich themselves.
In a study completed this year, Mr. Ziobrowski at Georgia State and his colleagues found that House members saw the stocks they owned outperform the market by 6 percent a year. Their research from several years ago found that senators did even better, at 12 percent above average. The researchers attributed the performance to a “significant information advantage” that lawmakers hold by virtue of their positions and the fact they are not bound by insider-trading law.
However, a separate study last year by researchers at Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the portfolios of lawmakers actually performed somewhat worse than average investors. It found that members did do better when investing in companies in their home districts or associated with campaign donors — suggesting that they benefited from their political connections — but still not as well as the average investor.
While concerns go back decades about lawmakers trading on confidential information, the issue drew renewed attention with a new book on the topic, “Throw Them All Out” by Peter Schweizer, and a “60 Minutes” report in November. Both linked high-level briefings that Congressional leaders received on the 2008 financial crisis and on health care to their purchase and sale of certain stocks.
Members insisted that they never traded on information that was not public, and some Congressional leaders pointed out that their investments were in blind trusts managed by professional advisers. Nonetheless, the publicity led some 90 members of Congress to call anew for a ban on insider trading.
Mr. Pastor, the Arizona congressman, said he never relied on fancy stock investments to make money. He said the key to his good fortune was watching what he spends, paying off debts and, at age 68, collecting Social Security and a pension from his days as a county supervisor.
“I don’t see myself as a man of great wealth,” he said. “To say that I’m enjoying a millionaire’s lifestyle — well, I can tell you, I guess a millionaire’s income doesn’t go very far these days.”
The article, "Economic Downturn Took a Detour at Capitol Hill," first appeared in The New York Times.
Copyright © 2012 The New York Times
Monday, December 26, 2011
Our Berkshire Politics and where they can take us
The Berkshires are unique, of course our politics are also. So many times something is going on in the state and we are so protected from it. Especially if it does not have a liberal slant so the Eagle will ignore it. Or, it will be written to their liking but not always to our benefit. Always the biased agenda. We have Fox News, WBRK radio and our Pittsfield Gazette but even they cannot follow all that goes on in our fair state or county. Probably the reason why the county votes the way it does? Why not, the majority of our neighbors think everything is great and keep re-electing the people that have brought them this prosperity.
Our non-native voters come from every state mostly adjacent states. They vacationed here before moving, enjoyed the cultural arts and the scenic beauty
and decided to retire or relocate to the Berkshires. I was here a month and knew I would never leave. Some of the reasons many move here they forget, politics being one. Muscle misery kicks in and they want our politics to mirror what they
left or the left ideology.
Forty three years ago it was a little different, I remember. Pittsfield was a modern up to date city bustling with industry and a population of close to fifty thousand. We had crime that came with the drug culture of the sixties but by today's standards it was minor. It was difficult to find parking during business hours as the commerce taking place was alive. Do you remember?
The following article is one man’s plight with Medicare of Massachusetts. Or the Medical Miracle of the United States now. To think, they copied us? We have fifty thousand undocumented Democrats in the state sucking our welfare system dry and the health care with it. The rest of the country will probably do that also it is difficult to get too much of a good thing. Unless we were directly involved in a situation or subscribed to the Boston Herald we would never know. This is a human interest story that could effect each and every one of us in time. With the political debates and all that is going on we hear very little about Medical care in Massachusetts. It will inspire us to look forward to the 2012 elections.
The following Herald Story by Margery Eagan is just such a story.
By Margery Eagan
Thursday, November 3, 2011 -
No arsenal ... is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.........Ronald Reagan
Our non-native voters come from every state mostly adjacent states. They vacationed here before moving, enjoyed the cultural arts and the scenic beauty
and decided to retire or relocate to the Berkshires. I was here a month and knew I would never leave. Some of the reasons many move here they forget, politics being one. Muscle misery kicks in and they want our politics to mirror what they
left or the left ideology.
Forty three years ago it was a little different, I remember. Pittsfield was a modern up to date city bustling with industry and a population of close to fifty thousand. We had crime that came with the drug culture of the sixties but by today's standards it was minor. It was difficult to find parking during business hours as the commerce taking place was alive. Do you remember?
The following article is one man’s plight with Medicare of Massachusetts. Or the Medical Miracle of the United States now. To think, they copied us? We have fifty thousand undocumented Democrats in the state sucking our welfare system dry and the health care with it. The rest of the country will probably do that also it is difficult to get too much of a good thing. Unless we were directly involved in a situation or subscribed to the Boston Herald we would never know. This is a human interest story that could effect each and every one of us in time. With the political debates and all that is going on we hear very little about Medical care in Massachusetts. It will inspire us to look forward to the 2012 elections.
The following Herald Story by Margery Eagan is just such a story.
Co-pay hike a painful reality
Miracle drug monthly cost jumps from $42 to $600
By Margery EaganThursday, November 3, 2011 -
Ken Helgeson could be you.
The retired pressman from Millis worked for more than 50 years, sometimes two jobs, to take care of his daughter and his wife, Marion, a paraplegic as the result of polio.
“I never asked anybody for anything. I never took a free ride or money from the state. You took care of yourself. It’s the way we got brought up, and that’s what I’ve done,” Helgeson said yesterday, not bragging but putting the irony of his
plight in perspective.
Helgeson is simply another man who played by the rules, and now faces a nightmare.
In what he calls “a sellout,” Helgeson says Medicare has changed its deal for covering the prescription drug that kept him working for 10 years with increasingly severe rheumatoid arthritis. Enbrel used to cost him a $42 per month co-pay. Now it costs him $600 a month. He can’t afford it. So he stopped taking Enbrel four months ago.
“Six hundred a month is an awful lot of money on a fixed income,” he said. “I just can’t pay.”
But Helgeson is far from alone. At a recent State House hearing, doctors, patients advocates and patients themselves told lawmakers that not only is Medicare changing prescription drug rules, private insurers also have demanded high patient payment for some of the more expensive drugs treating cancer, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, hemophilia and multiple sclerosis.
According to a new group formed to combat this — the New England Coalition for Affordable Prescription Drugs — Blue Cross has already implemented higher payments for these so-called Tier 4 drugs in numerous states, including Rhode Island and Delaware. State Sen. Anthony Petrucelli (D-East Boston) has introduced legislation here to cap huge co-payments, but the bill’s fate in unclear.
Meanwhile, the coalition reports, more and more of the severely ill are delaying buying drugs they need or, like Helgeson, not buying them at all.
“Maybe Phil Mickelson can afford it,” Helgeson said, referring to the pro golfer’s ubiquitous Enbrel commercials. “I’d love to tell you that I can, too.
Helgeson could have made the same commercial because Enbrel worked wonders for him.
“After the first week or 10 days, it was a miracle. I was riding my bike. I painted my house,” he recalled.
He went fishing again at local lakes and at the South Boston yacht club where he’s belonged for 20 years. “I’d get up in the morning and the pain would just absolutely be gone. I can’t even begin to tell you,” Helgeson said.
These days, it’s a different story.
“Now I can deal with the pain until it gets terribly severe,” he said. “At that point I don’t know what I’m going to do, but if I get a major flare-up, I’ll end up in the hospital because I can’t breathe.”
Of course, Helgeson’s insurance covers hospitalization, even though that would cost way more than the Enbrel does.
So far, Ken Helgeson has been lucky — no “major flare-ups” yet.
His wife, Marion, however, paints a different picture. “Kenny’s not a guy to complain. But he’s struggling, and I hate to see him struggle,” she said. “Sometimes it takes him three times just to get out of bed. You know he married me with polio, but we never knew it would get this bad. My husband is a terrific fellow who’s taken care of me for 47 years. He just doesn’t deserve this.”
What the MA GOP Needs to do from the Boston Herald.............
GOP needs resolutions for 2012 Click for article
By Holly Robichaud
Monday, December 26, 2011 - Updated 14 hours ago
Now that the Massachusetts Republican Party has elected a new chairman, it is time for a fresh start. Here are some 2012 resolutions the new GOP leadership team should adopt:
• Register more GOP voters: Right now, only 11 percent of registered Massachusetts voters are Republicans. Despite all the Democrat scandals that have plagued Beacon Hill, our numbers have not multiplied. Don’t leave the growth of registration numbers to fate. There needs to be a systematic plan to add more Republicans to the voter lists. It shouldn’t be too hard to register new GOP voters in districts such as the one represented by U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Salem), who had no idea of his wife’s involvement in her fugitive brother’s finances. He is a walking advertisement for us.
• Get out the vote on Election Day: The party’s previous leadership dropped the ball for 2010 elections. If there had been a well-organized get-out-the-vote program, which would have made a 4 percent difference in vote totals, then Mary Connaughton would now be the state auditor. Starting today, the victory program needs to be convincing and identifying voters to turn out for the November election. Don’t wait until the last minute.
• Make friends with the Tea Party: In order to fight the Democrat domination, the GOP needs to be a party of addition not subtraction. Cooperate with the Tea Party on voter education and grassroots organizing.
• Don’t neglect the down-ticket candidates: If the GOP is to be a strong opposition party in Massachusetts, it can’t put all of its eggs in one basket. There needs to be support for the top of the ticket as well as the legislative candidates who are our future farm team.
• Be proactive on voter integrity: Whether it is monitoring the political tactics of the Neighbor-to-Neighbor organization or supporting legislation requiring identification to vote, the party should be out in front on these issues so that our elections are fair and honest.
Most importantly, Republicans and Tea Party patriots need to adopt the glass-is-half-full philosophy. We don’t live in Alabama, so we cannot expect that our elected officials, such as U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, are going to vote 100 percent of the time with the party. We have to be happy that we have a senator who votes a conservative stance 80 percent of the time rather than an ultra-left wing former Obama administration official who will vote the other way all the time. Anchors-aweigh U.S. Sen. John Kerry already has that covered.
Let’s make 2012 a Happy Republican New Year!
By Holly Robichaud
Monday, December 26, 2011 - Updated 14 hours ago
Now that the Massachusetts Republican Party has elected a new chairman, it is time for a fresh start. Here are some 2012 resolutions the new GOP leadership team should adopt:
• Register more GOP voters: Right now, only 11 percent of registered Massachusetts voters are Republicans. Despite all the Democrat scandals that have plagued Beacon Hill, our numbers have not multiplied. Don’t leave the growth of registration numbers to fate. There needs to be a systematic plan to add more Republicans to the voter lists. It shouldn’t be too hard to register new GOP voters in districts such as the one represented by U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Salem), who had no idea of his wife’s involvement in her fugitive brother’s finances. He is a walking advertisement for us.
• Get out the vote on Election Day: The party’s previous leadership dropped the ball for 2010 elections. If there had been a well-organized get-out-the-vote program, which would have made a 4 percent difference in vote totals, then Mary Connaughton would now be the state auditor. Starting today, the victory program needs to be convincing and identifying voters to turn out for the November election. Don’t wait until the last minute.
• Make friends with the Tea Party: In order to fight the Democrat domination, the GOP needs to be a party of addition not subtraction. Cooperate with the Tea Party on voter education and grassroots organizing.
• Don’t neglect the down-ticket candidates: If the GOP is to be a strong opposition party in Massachusetts, it can’t put all of its eggs in one basket. There needs to be support for the top of the ticket as well as the legislative candidates who are our future farm team.
• Be proactive on voter integrity: Whether it is monitoring the political tactics of the Neighbor-to-Neighbor organization or supporting legislation requiring identification to vote, the party should be out in front on these issues so that our elections are fair and honest.
Most importantly, Republicans and Tea Party patriots need to adopt the glass-is-half-full philosophy. We don’t live in Alabama, so we cannot expect that our elected officials, such as U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, are going to vote 100 percent of the time with the party. We have to be happy that we have a senator who votes a conservative stance 80 percent of the time rather than an ultra-left wing former Obama administration official who will vote the other way all the time. Anchors-aweigh U.S. Sen. John Kerry already has that covered.
Let’s make 2012 a Happy Republican New Year!
Fast & Furious, AG Holder absurdity?
From the Tea Party looking out for our interests as always.
Semper Fi
peterR
Dear Patriot,
TheTeaParty.net hopes that everyone had a wonderful Christmas weekend and that everyone is feeling as refreshed and energized as we are, because we have some big fights ahead.
Eric Holder is completely out of control, and the politicization of the justice department is reaching scary proportions. While most Americans were distracted with the joys of Christmas and family, the justice department quietly announced that they are striking down the voter identification law passed in South Carolina. Eric Holder is using the justice department as though it were just one more weapon of the liberal propaganda machine to be selectively used to attack conservatives and protect liberals. Eric Holder's selective enforcement of the law is a dangerous abuse of power and we must not let this stand!
Already we have sent nearly 300,000 letters to Congress demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate obvious perjury committed on the ‘fast and furious’ debacle. Thanks to your letters, about 60 members of the House of Representatives have called for Holder’s resignation. We must keep the pressure on Congress, but we also need to hang the albatross of Eric Holder’s numerous scandals around the neck of President Obama as he seeks reelection.
Somebody has to take the fight to Eric Holder who just claimed that any criticism of him was clearly racism, and we are not going to be intimidated. There are so many scandals and abuses of power that many of them get lost in the shuffle. To start, we just need you to send another batch of letters to your Congressman and Senators demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate Eric Holder, but we will be launching a comprehensive effort to publicize his many failings.
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS BY CLICKING HERE
Sincerely,
Dustin Stockton
Chief Strategist
P.S. Our strength is in numbers. Please help our efforts by forwarding to a friend
Semper Fi
peterR
Dear Patriot,
TheTeaParty.net hopes that everyone had a wonderful Christmas weekend and that everyone is feeling as refreshed and energized as we are, because we have some big fights ahead.
Eric Holder is completely out of control, and the politicization of the justice department is reaching scary proportions. While most Americans were distracted with the joys of Christmas and family, the justice department quietly announced that they are striking down the voter identification law passed in South Carolina. Eric Holder is using the justice department as though it were just one more weapon of the liberal propaganda machine to be selectively used to attack conservatives and protect liberals. Eric Holder's selective enforcement of the law is a dangerous abuse of power and we must not let this stand!
Already we have sent nearly 300,000 letters to Congress demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate obvious perjury committed on the ‘fast and furious’ debacle. Thanks to your letters, about 60 members of the House of Representatives have called for Holder’s resignation. We must keep the pressure on Congress, but we also need to hang the albatross of Eric Holder’s numerous scandals around the neck of President Obama as he seeks reelection.
Somebody has to take the fight to Eric Holder who just claimed that any criticism of him was clearly racism, and we are not going to be intimidated. There are so many scandals and abuses of power that many of them get lost in the shuffle. To start, we just need you to send another batch of letters to your Congressman and Senators demanding that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate Eric Holder, but we will be launching a comprehensive effort to publicize his many failings.
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS BY CLICKING HERE
Sincerely,
Dustin Stockton
Chief Strategist
P.S. Our strength is in numbers. Please help our efforts by forwarding to a friend
For your reading pleasure.............Two articles..........................
Thanks to M.Franco the following two articles can be followed by our readers. The forwarding letters were submitted to news agencies in Western Massachusetts. Take comfort knowing there are Republicans in our midst that take up the pen for what is right.
Semper fi,
peterR
Dear Regional Republicans & Activist Friends:
1. Possessing an ID shows responsibility:
Letter: By Michael McMahon, Agawam, 12/23/11
I was a bit disappointed to see your paper’s stance on the voter ID issue. (“Path to the ballot box must be clear for all,” Dec. 20).
I’m just surprised how anyone cannot be in favor of upholding the integrity of elections. Discriminatory? How can you function in society today without a valid ID?
What if you want to buy a beer, rent a car, or God forbid apply for a job? What happens the day you show up to vote and they tell you “Sorry, it appears you have already voted”?
Also I’m sorry to say if someone has chosen a path through life that doesn’t require an ID - I’m not sure they have earned the responsibility to be trusted with the privilege of casting a ballot.
http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/letters_to_the_editor_how_can.html
2. GOP must distance itself from 'crony capitalism':
By Kathy Mailhot, Saturday, December 17, 2011
http://gazettenet.com/category/opinion?page=1
Freedom does not work...and it has never worked?
That is what the leader of the free world described on December 6, 2011. His statements deeply concern me.
He started by pointing out the fact that we were a country where hard work and personal responsibilities were among our core values. This was a time of prosperity, motivation and ingenuity. It was a time when we allowed capitalism to work.
But since then - we have been in a purposeful gentle slide into socialism with ever expanding government regulations, control and bureaucracies. The natural free market has been transformed into crony capitalism. The greed of the government and corporations has been entwined and continues to fester - scratching each others back at the expense to the citizens of this country.
As both parties have been pushed more to the progressive policies, we have been left with little choice for our elected officials. It is time to take back the Republican Party. The GOP must set itself apart and make a stand. Enough.
Over the years Republicans have considered themselves pro-business. But there is a huge difference between pro-business and pro-free market. A pro-business policy is a veil to more crony capitalism. Both parties bend over to appease large businesses and unions for politic favors. Our country is rotting from the inside and those in power are masters of illusion.
President Obama claims that we are a richer nation and have a stronger democracy. Who is he kidding? How can we be richer with $15 trillion debt that is rising as we continue to give away our sovereignty to the interests of the UN.
As far as being a democracy - we were never a democracy. Our government was deigned as a republic, a republic which is fading. I believe we are a kakistocracy - government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens. We cannot continue down this path.
(Mailhot is a candidate for Republican State Committee Woman, Hampshire & Franklin District.)
Semper fi,
peterR
Dear Regional Republicans & Activist Friends:
1. Possessing an ID shows responsibility:
Letter: By Michael McMahon, Agawam, 12/23/11
I was a bit disappointed to see your paper’s stance on the voter ID issue. (“Path to the ballot box must be clear for all,” Dec. 20).
I’m just surprised how anyone cannot be in favor of upholding the integrity of elections. Discriminatory? How can you function in society today without a valid ID?
What if you want to buy a beer, rent a car, or God forbid apply for a job? What happens the day you show up to vote and they tell you “Sorry, it appears you have already voted”?
Also I’m sorry to say if someone has chosen a path through life that doesn’t require an ID - I’m not sure they have earned the responsibility to be trusted with the privilege of casting a ballot.
http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/letters_to_the_editor_how_can.html
2. GOP must distance itself from 'crony capitalism':
By Kathy Mailhot, Saturday, December 17, 2011
http://gazettenet.com/category/opinion?page=1
Freedom does not work...and it has never worked?
That is what the leader of the free world described on December 6, 2011. His statements deeply concern me.
He started by pointing out the fact that we were a country where hard work and personal responsibilities were among our core values. This was a time of prosperity, motivation and ingenuity. It was a time when we allowed capitalism to work.
But since then - we have been in a purposeful gentle slide into socialism with ever expanding government regulations, control and bureaucracies. The natural free market has been transformed into crony capitalism. The greed of the government and corporations has been entwined and continues to fester - scratching each others back at the expense to the citizens of this country.
As both parties have been pushed more to the progressive policies, we have been left with little choice for our elected officials. It is time to take back the Republican Party. The GOP must set itself apart and make a stand. Enough.
Over the years Republicans have considered themselves pro-business. But there is a huge difference between pro-business and pro-free market. A pro-business policy is a veil to more crony capitalism. Both parties bend over to appease large businesses and unions for politic favors. Our country is rotting from the inside and those in power are masters of illusion.
President Obama claims that we are a richer nation and have a stronger democracy. Who is he kidding? How can we be richer with $15 trillion debt that is rising as we continue to give away our sovereignty to the interests of the UN.
As far as being a democracy - we were never a democracy. Our government was deigned as a republic, a republic which is fading. I believe we are a kakistocracy - government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens. We cannot continue down this path.
(Mailhot is a candidate for Republican State Committee Woman, Hampshire & Franklin District.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)