The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, via the Advocate There’s only seven days until Christmas and no doubt many out there are looking for a last minute stocking stuffer for your little one. Here’s an idea for you. How about “Resisting The Green Dragon,” described by its producers as an “explosive new 12-part DVD series” that exposes how radical environmentalists are brainwashing children and putting them on a dangerously wrong “spiritual” path. … Read the full story on TreeHugger
Continue reading …enlarge On Friday, the House approved the $801 billion “compromise” tax bill, sending it on to the White House for President Obama’s signature . Over the next two years, that budget-busting, gilded class giveaway will cost the Treasury $70 billion in revenue lost from the top 2% of taxpayers and another $25 billion uncollected from the richest estates in America . But sooner or later (sooner, if born-again deficit hawks get their way), that bill will come due and it will be paid by everyone else . In the meantime, here’s a picture of your tax dollars at work – for the rich and famous. For openers, it’s worth noting who will not benefit from the extension of the top Bush income tax rate and the gutting of the estate tax. Certainly not small business owners . Now-abandoned Democratic proposals to end the Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250,000 a year affected only 2% of all households, and an even smaller fraction of small businesses. (The Republican claim that Democrats want to “raise taxes on roughly half of small business income in America” is contingent on Bechtel, Coors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and other multinational “S corporation” being categorized as small businesses.) And from the beginning, the winners of the successful Republican crusade against the estate would never included family farmers . As incoming Speaker John Boehner put it in 2009: “People who aren’t wealthy, who may have built up value in land over generations and many family farms find themselves in situations where they’ve got to sell the farm in order the pay the taxes.” Unfortunately, that claim is just as false today as when George W. Bush uttered it during and after the 2000 presidential campaign. Now as in 2001 , Republicans wrongly claimed that the estate tax led to the loss of family farms. When President Bush blasted opponents who say “the death tax doesn’t cause people to sell their farms” with a mocking “don’t know who they’re talking to in Iowa,” neither Hawkeye State farmers nor researchers could name one. As David Cay Johnston, among the nation’s leading journalists when it comes to tax issues, conclude in the New York Times nine years ago: Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. “It’s a myth,” he said. Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes. The future looks no different. In 2009, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimated that only 1 in 500 estates (0.24%) was impacted by the $3.5 million per person threshold and 45% tax rate House Democrats sought to continue. And last year, the Tax Policy Center quantified just how few family farms or small businesses are actually impacted by the estate tax proposals under consideration, including the $5 million exemption and 35% rate advocated by Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and now to be signed into law by President Obama: We estimate that under the Obama proposal, 100 family farms and businesses would owe tax. (We define such estates as those where farm or business assets are valued at under $5 million and comprise the majority of estate assets.) The Lincoln-Kyl proposal would cut the number to 40. Even under current law, fewer than 2,700 family farms and businesses would owe tax. But thanks to the new tax bill, one family-owned business – Walmart – could reap a multi-billion dollar bonanza. As Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders explained in his filibuster last week, the elimination of the estate tax could save the Walton family alone $32.7 billion. (Already, the one-year lapse of the levy allowed the estates of George Steinbrenner and Texas billionaire Dan Duncan to escape taxes altogether in 2010 .) But as the Arkansas Times pointed out, today’s vote ensures Sam Walton’s clan will keep billions out of the hands of Uncle Sam: Please note that the cut in the top estate tax, from 45 to 35 percent, will be worth a cool $9 billion at current values to just the top five Walton estates. 9 BILLION. Who’ll pay for that lost revenue (not just from Waltons but Kochs, etc.) over the years? The working schlubs, that’s who. That victory isn’t the first – and won’t be the last – for the Walton family and its campaign to shield its roughly $90 billion fortune. As USA Today reported back in 2005 : Led by Sam Walton’s only daughter, Alice, the family spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year’s federal elections. That’s more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show. The Waltons have joined a coterie of wealthy families trying to save fortunes through permanent repeal of the estate tax, government watchdogs say. The election of President Bush and more conservatives to Congress gave momentum to the long-fought effort. The Waltons add more. And speaking of more, the big winners in today’s tax cut windfall for the wealthy also reside exactly where you’d expect: on Wall Street and in the gatherings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce . As the New York Times reported three weeks ago: Two years after the onset of the financial crisis, the stock market is recovering and Wall Street’s moneyed elite are breathing easier again. And this means in some cases they are spending again — at times cautiously, but sometimes with a familiar swagger. As it turns out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn’t merely coordinate with Wall Street to battle President Obama on health care reform, regulation of the financial industry and so much else. It fought to ensure another Treasury draining payday for its members. In November, a study by Citizens for Tax Justice and Chamber Watch revealed just some of the beneficiaries of the GOP’s $700 billion, ten-year haul for the upper class. Its report followed the money : Rupert Murdoch , the CEO of News Corporation, whose donation of $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce led to well-publicized shareholder outrage, would pocket more than $1.3 million. Don Blankenship , a former U.S. Chamber Board member and the CEO of Massey Energy, whose company owned the mine in which twenty-nine miners died in April 2010′s mining disaster, the worst in forty years, would take home more than $700,000. David Cote , the CEO of Honeywell and a member of the National Fiscal Commission, who keynoted an address to the National Chamber Foundation expressing concern about the national debt over the next ten years, would get a tax cut of over $1.2 million. CEOs of big banks on Wall Street , who helped collapse the economy and then used the U.S. Chamber to fight stronger financial regulations, stand to reap between $700,000 and $1.6 million each. The CEOs of the health insurance industry , whose industry saw an overall increase in profits this year even while they slashed benefits and instituted breathtaking premium increases, are looking to personally benefit from another hit on the middle class by taking in between $335,000 and $875,000. U.S. Chamber President and CEO, Thomas Donohue , who has shifted the Chamber’s mission from serving mainstream business to serving the interests of the CEOs whose corporations write the biggest checks, will personally gain over $200,000. Now, President Obama is on the verge of kowtowing to GOP leaders who would, as Paul Krugman explained, ” cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.” At a time of two wars, massive budget deficits and record income inequality, that is your tax dollars at work. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …You might have heard how careless some third-party apps can be with your personal data, but it may not yet have hit home — offenders can include must-have programs like MySpace and Pandora, too. The Wall Street Journal tested 101 popular apps for iPhone and Android and discovered that over half transmitted unique device identifiers (UDID) to a flock of advertisers without so much as a prompt, and that some (including Pandora) even transmitted a user’s age, gender and location to better target their marks. Now, before you boycott your favorite music apps, you might want to hear the other side of the story, which is that all this data is typically processed in batches and anonymized so that advertisers can’t necessarily separate you from the crowd. However, the worry is that there may be little stopping nefarious individuals from creating a database that links your UDID to all this other data you send out. It’s a juicy proposition for targeted advertising, sure, but also potentially real-world crime, so we doubt this will be the last we hear of UDID privacy scares. Wall Street Journal says apps may violate privacy, fingers MySpace and Pandora originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:41:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Five killed in Air Force strike on cell of rocket launchers preparing to fire at Negev communities
Continue reading …Sen. Jon Tester, the Democratic senator from Montana who was elected in 2006 with significant help from progressives, was one of the Democrats who voted against the DREAM Act today, and it’s very disappointing to see the lame rationale he provided yesterday via email. Senator Jon Tester today released the following statement in advance of his vote against the DREAM Act: “Illegal immigration is a critical problem facing our country, but amnesty is not the solution. I do not support legislation that provides a path to citizenship for anyone in this country illegally.” The Senate is expected to vote on the DREAM Act Saturday. Tester voted against the measure in 2007. C&L’s managing editor, David Neiwert called Tester’s office (Yes, we make the calls too) and confronted them over his idiocy and that is indeed his position. Andrew Simpson wrote a piece called: The DREAM Act is Not Amnesty. As members of Congress debate the DREAM Act once again, opponents of the act are again attacking the legislation as “ backdoor amnesty .” Instead of allowing ourselves to be caught up in such broad rhetoric, we must understand that the DREAM Act is neither backdoor, nor is it amnesty. Amnesty is defined as “a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government.” The Greek root of the word, amnestia , refers to the process of forgetting. An alternative definition of amnesty may, therefore, be “a forgetting and forgiveness of sins.” By such a definition, we can see the message of the gospel as one that grants us amnesty by Christ. Regardless of where we differ on the benefits or demerits of amnesty, let us be thoughtful and discern enough to realize that the DREAM Act is not amnesty. Rather, it is an extension of grace to a very specific group of people who did not knowingly commit a crime against the United States. If the DREAM Act passes this year, it would only provide a path to citizenship for those immigrants who meet a very strict set of requirements . The only immigrants who would be eligible would be those who came to the United States at the age of 15 or younger; have lived continuously in the United States since before 2005; were under the age of 30 on the date of enactment; demonstrate good moral character (i.e. prove they have not committed any crimes that would make them inadmissible to the country as determined by existing immigration law); and have graduated from high school, obtained a GED certificate, served in the military, or have been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States.. .read on Tester should actually read the bill instead of reciting Pat Buchanan talking points our way. And he could check out his own constituents and see what they can accomplish, like Carlos. If a state like Texas can pass a DREAM Act then what’s Tester’s problem? The quality of Texas’ future will be determined by our state’s ability to educate the next generation of students. Fortunately, Texas has enacted important legislation that recognizes the contributions of all students. It’s now time for Congress to follow suit. In 2001, Gov. Rick Perry signed House Bill 1403 into law after the bill passed the Senate with zero no votes. House Bill 1403 by former Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, now called the Texas Dream Act , has proven to be an incredibly successful law providing access to higher education for students who may otherwise be unable to afford the increasing cost of attending college. Texas law currently provides that all students, regardless of immigration status, may qualify for in-state tuition at Texas colleges or universities provided they have lived in Texas the three years leading up to high school graduation and resided in Texas the year prior to their enrollment in higher education. The Texas Dream Act thus recognizes that immigrant students who have been educated in our Texas public schools have strong family, community and economic ties to the U.S. The state then follows through on the investment taxpayers have made in their education by allowing them to pay the same tuition rate as other Texans who meet the residency timeline requirements. These students have been admitted to colleges and universities based on their merit and despite the many obstacles with which they are confronted — a principle every Texan can appreciate. The law is both successful and popular because it reduces dropouts, encourages access to college and comes at little expense to the state. Dave N.: Even more troubling to me is Tester’s rationale, particularly the second sentence in his statement: I do not support legislation that provides a path to citizenship for anyone in this country illegally. Really? Then, by definition, Senator, you support the deportation of 12 million people from our shores. Because realistically speaking, that’s the only choice available. And we hope you’ve thought about what doing that would make this country look like — not to mention the economic wreckage that would ensue. Maybe, Senator, the problem is that this country has an economy that generates hundreds of thousands of unskilled-labor jobs every year (up until Republicans wrecked the economy, it was well north of 500,000) and yet issues only 5,000 green cards to cover them . Being a farmer and all, that’s something you ought to know a little about. You should also know that a lot of your fellow farmers would prefer to be straight with the law — but don’t have a lot of choice, since farm labor is just about impossible to find outside the non-immigrant population, irrespective of wages. It’s a broken system, and you know it, Senator. But deporting 12 million people won’t solve it. Indeed, the DREAM Act wouldn’t solve it — it would have at best simply ameliorated some of the more noxious aspects of the system’s dysfunction. But at least it would have done that — and given us some hope that the next Senate could begin the long hard work of fixing it. Now? Fuggedaboutit. Badly played, Senator. And deeply disappointing.
Continue reading …Though it’s standing firm on the definition of its original 4G specification — IMT-Advanced — which only WiMAX 2 and LTE-Advanced are currently capable of meeting, the ITU is easing off its earlier rhetroic , admitting that the term “4G” realistically could apply “to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMAX, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed.” The whole dust-up started when carriers around the world deploying LTE and WiMAX networks ( ahem , Sprint and Verizon) were throwing the “4G” term around very, very loosely — and to their credit, the networks are indisputably a generation beyond CDMA2000 and UMTS / HSPA, so if anything, we’d fault the ITU for leaving today’s modern networks without a generation to call their own. The “evolved 3G technologies” verbiage in the ITU’s statement would seemingly even leave room for T-Mobile USA’s claim that its 21Mbps HSPA+ network constitutes 4G… so yeah, score one for marketing campaigns. Of course, none of these carriers had ever planned to bow to the ITU’s recommendations anyway, so the ruling has little practical relevance — just know that the true 4G speeds are still a few years off. [Thanks, Nate] ITU capitulates, admits that the term ’4G’ could apply to LTE, WiMAX, and ‘evolved 3G technologies’ originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:35:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” (Dec. 18)
Continue reading …Today liberal Senate Democrats failed to garner the 60-vote threshold to end debate on and move to a final passage vote for the DREAM Act. In covering the story, the news wire credited Republican opposition for “doom[ing]” the legislation, but the math doesn't work out when you look at the breakdown of the votes on the motion to end debate — also known as invoking cloture. [h/t reader Kevin Davis] read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Fox News is reporting that the Senate has voted to approve the House bill repealing the military’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy banning gay servicemembers. From MSNBC : WASHINGTON — In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Obama was expected to sign it next week, although the change wouldn’t take immediate effect. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ fighting ability. After that, there’s a 60-day waiting period for the military. “It is time to close this chapter in our history,” Obama said in a statement after a test vote cleared the way for final action. “It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.” The Senate vote was 65-31. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, on Wednesday. Here’s Politico on the six Republican senators who voted to end this misbegotten policy: Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, Mark Kirk of Illinois, plus Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voted to end debate on the bill that would repeal the policy that bans openly gays service members.
Continue reading …