I guess I try to apply logic to a totally illogical situation. Anyone interested in the future of America as the world's leading country in almost anything we can measure would not vote for more of the same !! Anyone interested in what they can personally get from the current overspending administration will, without any concern about the future of America, will vote for more of the same. This division of voters is a failproof recipe for disaster !! Please read the story on the link below and let us know what you think.
Obama's Big Spending Vision Gives Romney an Edge
Monday, April 9, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The Real Cost of Living: $150,000 Minimum
The Real Cost of Living: $150,000 Minimum
March 7, 2012
The divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent has ignited a
national debate about the income gap, especially since Occupy Wall
Street protesters descended on lower Manhattan last fall. But how much
money does it take to feel financially secure these days?
The answer, at least according to a new survey of Americans by WSL/Strategic Retail, is $150,000. That level of income is more than three times the national median of $49,445 for 2010, and it’s enough to put a household into the top 10 percent nationally.
RELATED: Down and Out on $250,000 a Year
The survey asked respondents to choose which of four categories best described them: I can’t even afford the basics; I can barely afford the basics and nothing else; I can afford the basics plus some extras; and I can afford the basics, the extras, and I’m able to save too. It is only at that $150,000 level that the survey found the vast majority of consumers, 88 percent, saying they could buy what they need, afford some extras, and still be able to save a bit.
Even as the economy improves and consumer confidence builds, more than half of Americans – 52 percent – feel like they can just afford the basics, and many with six-figure incomes still feel like they are just scraping by. The survey found that 18 percent of American households earning between $100,000 and $150,000 said they could only afford the basics, with another 10 percent saying they sometimes can’t even afford those staples.
“We clearly have what used to be upper middle income – 75 to 150k – folks who are saying, it just isn’t so,” says Candace Corlett, president of WSL/Strategic Retail. “A quarter of them are saying I can barely afford the basics.” So while six-figure incomes used to represent affluence, that’s no longer the case.
Of course, as The Fiscal Times has written before, in many parts of the country, an annual income of $250,000 could easily leave a typical family in the red once all their expenses and taxes are factored in.
The buying power of the average paycheck has shrunk along with home values. The WSL Strategic Retail survey found that $150,000 is the minimum for the average household to be able to afford the basics and a few extras, with a little left over to sock away for a rainy day. Of course, that $150,000 is based on average costs for housing, food, clothing, etc.--perhaps a place like Peoria, Illinois. If it takes that kind of money to have a decent middle class life in Peoria, what would it take to match it in the New York Metropolitan area, Phoenix, or Chicago?
We used Bankrate's cost of living comparison calculator to measure the difference between Peoria and other cities and chose 5 of the top 10 cities with the highest cost of living, according to Kiplinger. We added Chicago to represent the middle of the country.
1. The New York metropolitan area was the most expensive. Equivalent income: $337,311.87. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 124.87%.
2. Honolulu: Equivalent income: $258,099.19. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 72.07%.
3. San Francisco: Equivalent income: $255,409.43. Percent increase to maintain standard of living:70.27.%
4. San Jose: Equivalent income: $243,260.85. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 62.17%
5. Washington, D.C. area: Equivalent income: $218,127.70. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 45.42%.
6. Chicago area came in with a 21.36% increase to maintain the standard of living. Equivalent income: $182,045.06.
The struggling economy has clearly created a recession mindset among consumers. When asked how long the recession will continue, 80 percent of people say three years or more, Corlett says – up from 43 percent back in 2010. “They may not literally mean the government’s definition of a recession, but they certainly mean a recessionary mindset for them,” Corlett says.
Those financial pressures have made consumers much more cost-conscious. Three-quarters of women now say it’s “important to get the lowest price on everything they buy,” up 12 percentage points from 2008 and 22 percentage points from 2004. To that end, more are using coupons (68 percent vs. 61 percent in 2010) and buying only when items are on sale (45 percent vs. 38 percent in 2010).
And, perhaps unsurprisingly, young people – those between the ages of 18 and 34, who have long been the prized target for marketers – were more likely than other age groups to say they don’t have enough money to cover their basic needs. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed put themselves in that group, compared with 17 percent of those aged 35 to 54 and 13 percent of people 55 or older.
An IRS breakdown of U.S. incomes, released the day after the consumer survey, provides a reminder of why people, even those with six-figure incomes, may be feeling poorer. For tax year 2010, adjusted gross incomes reported to the IRS rose 5.2 percent to $8 trillion total – the first increase after a couple of years of declines. But while tax filers making more than $250,000 saw their total incomes climb almost 14 percent, those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 gained just 1.5 percent.
The answer, at least according to a new survey of Americans by WSL/Strategic Retail, is $150,000. That level of income is more than three times the national median of $49,445 for 2010, and it’s enough to put a household into the top 10 percent nationally.
RELATED: Down and Out on $250,000 a Year
The survey asked respondents to choose which of four categories best described them: I can’t even afford the basics; I can barely afford the basics and nothing else; I can afford the basics plus some extras; and I can afford the basics, the extras, and I’m able to save too. It is only at that $150,000 level that the survey found the vast majority of consumers, 88 percent, saying they could buy what they need, afford some extras, and still be able to save a bit.
Even as the economy improves and consumer confidence builds, more than half of Americans – 52 percent – feel like they can just afford the basics, and many with six-figure incomes still feel like they are just scraping by. The survey found that 18 percent of American households earning between $100,000 and $150,000 said they could only afford the basics, with another 10 percent saying they sometimes can’t even afford those staples.
“We clearly have what used to be upper middle income – 75 to 150k – folks who are saying, it just isn’t so,” says Candace Corlett, president of WSL/Strategic Retail. “A quarter of them are saying I can barely afford the basics.” So while six-figure incomes used to represent affluence, that’s no longer the case.
Of course, as The Fiscal Times has written before, in many parts of the country, an annual income of $250,000 could easily leave a typical family in the red once all their expenses and taxes are factored in.
The buying power of the average paycheck has shrunk along with home values. The WSL Strategic Retail survey found that $150,000 is the minimum for the average household to be able to afford the basics and a few extras, with a little left over to sock away for a rainy day. Of course, that $150,000 is based on average costs for housing, food, clothing, etc.--perhaps a place like Peoria, Illinois. If it takes that kind of money to have a decent middle class life in Peoria, what would it take to match it in the New York Metropolitan area, Phoenix, or Chicago?
We used Bankrate's cost of living comparison calculator to measure the difference between Peoria and other cities and chose 5 of the top 10 cities with the highest cost of living, according to Kiplinger. We added Chicago to represent the middle of the country.
1. The New York metropolitan area was the most expensive. Equivalent income: $337,311.87. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 124.87%.
2. Honolulu: Equivalent income: $258,099.19. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 72.07%.
3. San Francisco: Equivalent income: $255,409.43. Percent increase to maintain standard of living:70.27.%
4. San Jose: Equivalent income: $243,260.85. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 62.17%
5. Washington, D.C. area: Equivalent income: $218,127.70. Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 45.42%.
6. Chicago area came in with a 21.36% increase to maintain the standard of living. Equivalent income: $182,045.06.
The struggling economy has clearly created a recession mindset among consumers. When asked how long the recession will continue, 80 percent of people say three years or more, Corlett says – up from 43 percent back in 2010. “They may not literally mean the government’s definition of a recession, but they certainly mean a recessionary mindset for them,” Corlett says.
Those financial pressures have made consumers much more cost-conscious. Three-quarters of women now say it’s “important to get the lowest price on everything they buy,” up 12 percentage points from 2008 and 22 percentage points from 2004. To that end, more are using coupons (68 percent vs. 61 percent in 2010) and buying only when items are on sale (45 percent vs. 38 percent in 2010).
And, perhaps unsurprisingly, young people – those between the ages of 18 and 34, who have long been the prized target for marketers – were more likely than other age groups to say they don’t have enough money to cover their basic needs. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed put themselves in that group, compared with 17 percent of those aged 35 to 54 and 13 percent of people 55 or older.
An IRS breakdown of U.S. incomes, released the day after the consumer survey, provides a reminder of why people, even those with six-figure incomes, may be feeling poorer. For tax year 2010, adjusted gross incomes reported to the IRS rose 5.2 percent to $8 trillion total – the first increase after a couple of years of declines. But while tax filers making more than $250,000 saw their total incomes climb almost 14 percent, those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 gained just 1.5 percent.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Health insurance rate hikes in nine states deemed excessive by HHS
This morning started with viewing pictures of my new twin granddaughters at their morning feeding. A wonderful start before I viewed the attached document from HHS. It appears to be another nail in the coffin of free enterprise. I cannot understand how the ability to exercise dictatorial control over a publicly owned corporation can happen under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It appears that every day we see signs of random orders to control the vital aspects of American Capitalism. Clearly our President believes that to overcome the will of the American people, the abrupt CHANGE to socialism requires a Dictatorship. Maybe someone can tell me it is just my nightmare?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Health insurance rate hikes in nine states deemed excessive by HHS
Secretary Sebelius calls on insurance companies to drop unreasonable rate hikes
Health
and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today
that health insurance premium increases in nine states have been deemed
“unreasonable” under the rate review authority granted by the Affordable
Care Act.
"Thanks
to the Affordable Care Act consumers are no longer in the dark about
their health insurance premiums," said Secretary Sebelius. "Now,
insurance companies are required to justify rate increases of 10 percent
or higher. It’s time for these companies to immediately rescind these
unreasonable rate hikes, issue refunds to consumers or publicly explain
their refusal to do so."
Secretary
Sebelius also released a new report today showing that, six months
after HHS began reviewing proposed health insurance rate increases,
consumers are already seeing results. Since the rate review program took
effect in 2011, health insurers have proposed fewer double-digit rate
increases. Furthermore, more states have taken an active role in
reducing rate increases, and consumers in all states are getting
straight answers from their insurance companies when their rates are
raised by 10 percent or more. As of March 10, 2012, the justifications
and analysis of 186 double-digit rate increases for plans covering 1.3
million people have been posted at HealthCare.gov, resulting in a
decline in rate increases. According to the report, in the last quarter
of 2011 alone, states reported that premium increases dropped by 4.5
percent, and in states like Nevada, premiums actually declined.
In
the decisions announced today, HHS determined, after independent expert
review, that two insurance companies have proposed unreasonable health
insurance premium increases in nine states—Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The
excessive rate hikes would affect over 42,000 residents across these
nine states.
In
these nine states, the insurers have requested rate increases as high
as 24 percent. These increases were reviewed by independent experts to
determine whether they are reasonable. In this case, HHS determined
that the rate increases were unreasonable, because the insurer would be
spending a low percentage of premium dollars on actual medical care and
quality improvements, and because the justifications were based on
unreasonable assumptions.
Most
rates are reviewed by states and many states have the authority to
reject unreasonable premium increases. Since the passage of the health
care law, the number of states with this authority increased from 30 to
37, with several states extending existing “prior authority” to new
markets.
The report released today shows that:
* States like Texas, Kentucky, Nevada and Indiana are reporting fewer requests for rate increases over 10 percent.
* States like California, New York, Oregon, and many others, have proactively lowered rate increases for their residents.
* The
rate review program has made insurance companies explain their
increases, and more than 180 have been posted publicly and are open for
consumer comment on companyprofiles.healthcare.gov
This
initiative is one of many in the health care law to ensure that
insurance companies play by the rules, prohibiting them from dropping
coverage when a person gets sick, billing consumers into bankruptcy
through annual or lifetime limits, and, soon, discriminating against
anyone with a pre-existing condition.
Information on the specific determinations made today is available at: http://companyprofiles.
The rate review report released today is available at: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/
General information about rate review is available at: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/Councilwoman Refuses to Pledge Allegiance to Our Flag
Councilwoman Refuses to Pledge Allegiance to Our Flag
By Darla Dawald
I don't care what city you are a councilman or woman for, if you are in America we Pledge Allegiance to Our Flag meaning we pledge allegiance to our country, our Constitution, our Republic for which it stands. Remember many have fought and died for you to have such freedom that you so easily disregard.
I remember a saying: "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything". I pity Councilwoman Williams as she obviously doesn't stand for anything of value.
Shame on Councilwoman Rebecca Williams!
According to WABC TV NJ, Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs doesn't like the fact the councilwoman Rebecca Williams doesn't want to say "The Pledge of Allegiance" before meetings.In fact, part of the controversy is whether or not everyone should stand for the pledge or sit because Councilwoman Williams remains seated. Apparently both stated their position at the last meeting.
"My exercising my right as a citizen to not pledge allegiance to a flag is my right as an American citizen, and for anyone to mock that I would question their allegiance to anything," Plainfield Councilwoman Rebecca Williams said. WABCThe Mayor is upset because Councilwoman Williams will not participate in the prayer either. The mayor see both as disrespectful and a sign of defiance.
"There are many officials who believe if you go by strict Jeffersonian interpretation there should be a separation of church and state," Williams said, "People have the right to their religion and their beliefs and I would never step on anyone's toes on that."It is clear she does not understand what the founders intended nor the consequence for their sacrifice and stand that has given her the opportunity as a woman to be a councilwoman in a free country.
I don't care what city you are a councilman or woman for, if you are in America we Pledge Allegiance to Our Flag meaning we pledge allegiance to our country, our Constitution, our Republic for which it stands. Remember many have fought and died for you to have such freedom that you so easily disregard.
I remember a saying: "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything". I pity Councilwoman Williams as she obviously doesn't stand for anything of value.
Shame on Councilwoman Rebecca Williams!
Do you believe Councilwoman Williams should participate in the pledge as a City Elected Leader?
Thursday, March 22, 2012
What makes gasoline prices rise?
This seems to be the best description of the drivers of the cost of gasoline. Unfortunately, it says no one can change it...simply supply and demand...real or imagined.
Q&A: What makes gasoline prices rise?
AP Energy Writer
Published Thursday, March 22, 2012
0 comments 
Feeds
Related Content
http://twitter.com/JonathanFahey Watching the numbers on the gas pump tick ever higher can boil the blood and lead the mind to wonder: Why are gasoline prices so high?Many stand accused, including oil companies, the president, Congress, and speculators on Wall Street. Others assume that the earth is just running out of oil.
The reality, economists say, is fairly simple, but it isn't very satisfying for a driver looking for someone to blame for his $75 fill-up. Last year, the average price of gasoline was higher than ever, and it hasn't gotten any better this year. The average price nationwide is $3.88 per gallon, the highest ever for March. Ten states and the District of Columbia are paying more than $4.
Q: What determines the price of gasoline?
A: Mainly, it's the price of crude oil, which is used to make gasoline. Oil is a global commodity, traded on exchanges around the world. The main U.S. oil benchmark has averaged $103 per barrel this year. The oil used to make gasoline at many U.S. coastal refineries has averaged $117 per barrel.
Oil prices have been high in recent months because global oil demand is expected to reach a record this year as the developing nations of Asia, Latin America and the Middle East increase their need for oil. There have also been minor supply disruptions in South Sudan, Syria and Nigeria. And oil prices have been pushed higher by traders worried that nuclear tensions with Iran could lead to more dramatic supply disruptions. Iran is the world's third largest exporter.
Q: How are gasoline prices set?
A: When an oil producer sells to a refiner, they generally agree to a price set on an exchange such as the New York Mercantile Exchange. After the oil is refined into gasoline, it is sold by the refiner to a distributor, again pegged to the price of wholesale gasoline on an exchange.
Finally, gas station owners set their own prices based on how much they paid for their last shipment, how much they will have to pay for their next shipment, and, perhaps most importantly, how much their competitor is charging. Gas stations make very little profit on the sale of gasoline. They want to lure drivers into their convenience stores to buy coffee and soda.
Oil companies and refiners have to accept whatever price the market settles on - it has no relation to their cost of doing business. When oil prices are high, oil companies make a lot of money, but they can't force the price of oil up.
Q: Are oil prices manipulated by speculators on Wall Street?
A: Investment in oil futures contracts by pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, exchange traded funds and other investors who aren't going to actually use oil has risen dramatically in the last decade. Much of this money is betting that oil prices will rise. It is possible that this has inflated the price of oil - and therefore gasoline - somewhat. But investors can also bet that prices will go down, and they do. Studies of the effects of speculation on oil markets suggest that it probably increases volatility, but that it doesn't have a major effect on average prices.
Q: Are politicians to blame for high prices?
A: Politicians can't do much to affect gasoline prices because the market for oil is global. Allowing increased drilling in the U.S. would contribute only small amounts of oil to world supply, not nearly enough to affect prices. The Associated Press conducted a statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production and found no statistical correlation between oil that comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. Over the last three years, domestic oil production has risen and gasoline prices rose sharply. In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. production fell dramatically, and prices did too.
Releasing oil from emergency supplies held in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could lead to a temporary dip in prices, but the market might instead take it as a signal that there is even less oil supply in the world than thought, and bid prices higher. Any price relief from a release of reserves would be temporary.
Politicians can, however, help reduce the total amount drivers pay at the pump. They could lower gasoline taxes and they can help get more fuel efficient cars into showrooms by mandating fuel economy improvements or subsidizing the cost of alternative-fueled vehicles. The first new fuel economy standards since 1990 are just now going into effect. Last summer the Obama Administration and automakers agreed to toughen standards further in 2016.
The U.S. fleet is now more fuel efficient than ever, and gasoline demand in the U.S. has fallen for 52 straight weeks. The U.S. is never again expected to consume as much gasoline as it did in 2006. That means that while drivers are paying more than they used to, they would have been paying much more if they consumed as much gasoline as they did in the middle of the last decade.
Q: Are prices high because the world is running out of oil?
A: Not yet. Prices are high because there's not a lot of oil that can be quickly and easily brought to market to meet demand or potential supply disruptions from natural disasters or political turmoil. Like most commodities, the need for oil is so great that people will pay almost anything, in the short term, to get their hands on what might be the last available barrel at any given moment.
But substantial new reserves of oil have been found in shale formations in the United States, in the Atlantic deep waters off of Africa and South America, and on the east coast of Africa. Canada has enormous reserves, and production is growing fast there. The Arctic, which is largely unexplored, is thought to have 25 percent of the world's known reserves.
All of this oil, however is hard to get and expensive to produce. That leads analysts to believe that oil will never stay much below $60 a barrel for an extended period again. As soon as oil prices fall, producers will stop developing this expensive oil until demand, and high prices, return. Current high prices have fueled a boom in oil exploration that is sure to bring more crude to the market in coming years. But it is not here yet, so for now, pump prices - and frustration - are expected to remain high.
Jonathan Fahey can be reached at http://twitter.com/JonathanFahey.
The reality, economists say, is fairly simple, but it isn't very satisfying for a driver looking for someone to blame for his $75 fill-up. Last year, the average price of gasoline was higher than ever, and it hasn't gotten any better this year. The average price nationwide is $3.88 per gallon, the highest ever for March. Ten states and the District of Columbia are paying more than $4.
Q: What determines the price of gasoline?
A: Mainly, it's the price of crude oil, which is used to make gasoline. Oil is a global commodity, traded on exchanges around the world. The main U.S. oil benchmark has averaged $103 per barrel this year. The oil used to make gasoline at many U.S. coastal refineries has averaged $117 per barrel.
Oil prices have been high in recent months because global oil demand is expected to reach a record this year as the developing nations of Asia, Latin America and the Middle East increase their need for oil. There have also been minor supply disruptions in South Sudan, Syria and Nigeria. And oil prices have been pushed higher by traders worried that nuclear tensions with Iran could lead to more dramatic supply disruptions. Iran is the world's third largest exporter.
Q: How are gasoline prices set?
A: When an oil producer sells to a refiner, they generally agree to a price set on an exchange such as the New York Mercantile Exchange. After the oil is refined into gasoline, it is sold by the refiner to a distributor, again pegged to the price of wholesale gasoline on an exchange.
Finally, gas station owners set their own prices based on how much they paid for their last shipment, how much they will have to pay for their next shipment, and, perhaps most importantly, how much their competitor is charging. Gas stations make very little profit on the sale of gasoline. They want to lure drivers into their convenience stores to buy coffee and soda.
Oil companies and refiners have to accept whatever price the market settles on - it has no relation to their cost of doing business. When oil prices are high, oil companies make a lot of money, but they can't force the price of oil up.
Q: Are oil prices manipulated by speculators on Wall Street?
A: Investment in oil futures contracts by pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, exchange traded funds and other investors who aren't going to actually use oil has risen dramatically in the last decade. Much of this money is betting that oil prices will rise. It is possible that this has inflated the price of oil - and therefore gasoline - somewhat. But investors can also bet that prices will go down, and they do. Studies of the effects of speculation on oil markets suggest that it probably increases volatility, but that it doesn't have a major effect on average prices.
Q: Are politicians to blame for high prices?
A: Politicians can't do much to affect gasoline prices because the market for oil is global. Allowing increased drilling in the U.S. would contribute only small amounts of oil to world supply, not nearly enough to affect prices. The Associated Press conducted a statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production and found no statistical correlation between oil that comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. Over the last three years, domestic oil production has risen and gasoline prices rose sharply. In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. production fell dramatically, and prices did too.
Releasing oil from emergency supplies held in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could lead to a temporary dip in prices, but the market might instead take it as a signal that there is even less oil supply in the world than thought, and bid prices higher. Any price relief from a release of reserves would be temporary.
Politicians can, however, help reduce the total amount drivers pay at the pump. They could lower gasoline taxes and they can help get more fuel efficient cars into showrooms by mandating fuel economy improvements or subsidizing the cost of alternative-fueled vehicles. The first new fuel economy standards since 1990 are just now going into effect. Last summer the Obama Administration and automakers agreed to toughen standards further in 2016.
The U.S. fleet is now more fuel efficient than ever, and gasoline demand in the U.S. has fallen for 52 straight weeks. The U.S. is never again expected to consume as much gasoline as it did in 2006. That means that while drivers are paying more than they used to, they would have been paying much more if they consumed as much gasoline as they did in the middle of the last decade.
Q: Are prices high because the world is running out of oil?
A: Not yet. Prices are high because there's not a lot of oil that can be quickly and easily brought to market to meet demand or potential supply disruptions from natural disasters or political turmoil. Like most commodities, the need for oil is so great that people will pay almost anything, in the short term, to get their hands on what might be the last available barrel at any given moment.
But substantial new reserves of oil have been found in shale formations in the United States, in the Atlantic deep waters off of Africa and South America, and on the east coast of Africa. Canada has enormous reserves, and production is growing fast there. The Arctic, which is largely unexplored, is thought to have 25 percent of the world's known reserves.
All of this oil, however is hard to get and expensive to produce. That leads analysts to believe that oil will never stay much below $60 a barrel for an extended period again. As soon as oil prices fall, producers will stop developing this expensive oil until demand, and high prices, return. Current high prices have fueled a boom in oil exploration that is sure to bring more crude to the market in coming years. But it is not here yet, so for now, pump prices - and frustration - are expected to remain high.
Jonathan Fahey can be reached at http://twitter.com/JonathanFahey.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
I wonder if we can ever get back to honest, unbiased news reporting. It seems that news has become an entertainment production aimed at a particular audience. The result is that we don't get all sides of a story and this tends to amplify the the growing rift among Americans. Any thoughts on how or if we can bring back the truth and objectivity in news reporting? Please post.
Albanese, joined on stage at the South by Southwest festival in Austin by The Huffington Post's Comedy Editor, Carol Hartsell, and comedian/author Sara Benincasa, attempted to rationalize why the vast majority of political comedy attacked the right.
Suffice to say they stumbled and bumbled their way through some dishonest answers.
"The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart would have teed off on a GOP candidate who talked about algae in such a fashion. When it comes from Obama's lips, you can hear the crickets.
The sooner comedy writers like Albanese admit that they have little interest in mocking the left, the sooner we'll see comedy programs like "Saturday Night Live" and "The Daily Show" tackle politics in an unbiased fashion.
'Daily Show' Producer: 'All of [GOP Presidential Candidates] Are Insane'
"The Daily Show" executive producer/writer Rory Albanese tried mightily to deny his program's liberal biases this week during a symposium on political humor.
But Albanese merely reinforced what conservatives already know about the current humor industry - Obama jokes aren't welcome.Albanese, joined on stage at the South by Southwest festival in Austin by The Huffington Post's Comedy Editor, Carol Hartsell, and comedian/author Sara Benincasa, attempted to rationalize why the vast majority of political comedy attacked the right.
Suffice to say they stumbled and bumbled their way through some dishonest answers.
Albanese admitted that after eight years of making jokes about President George W. Bush, it was difficult at first for "The Daily Show" to take aim at Obama. He said Obama's measured statements aren't easy targets for parody.Should political comedians want to find the funny from the left they can just tune in to Rush Limbaugh on any given afternoon. Or, listen to President Obama offer his latest silly defense for the wilting economy or how algae will help power the nation.
"There's funny stuff on the left, but sometimes you have to dig a little deeper. I can't say all the lies in politics come from the right. I think a lot of them come from the left," he said during the event Friday. "I do think it's important to try and come at things from all sides. What we do is poke fun at the [political] system, poke fun at the process...."
Albanese said the 2011-2012 Republican primary campaign, with such colorful candidates as Rick Perry and Hermain Cain, has been comic gold for "The Daily Show" and other jokesters.
"With all due respect to the candidates, there is the view that all of them are insane. A guy like Santorum, who's taking an anti-college stance? That's funny. I mean, who the f--- is against college?
"The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart would have teed off on a GOP candidate who talked about algae in such a fashion. When it comes from Obama's lips, you can hear the crickets.
The sooner comedy writers like Albanese admit that they have little interest in mocking the left, the sooner we'll see comedy programs like "Saturday Night Live" and "The Daily Show" tackle politics in an unbiased fashion.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Justice Department Files Objection To Texas Voter ID Law | Fox News
Justice Department files objection to Texas voter ID law
Published March 12, 2012
| FoxNews.com
ballot_texas_110210.jpg
AP
FILE: Voters are shown in this Nov. 2, 2010, photo casting ballots in Texas.
The Justice Department is objecting to a new photo ID law in Texas for voters, saying the state has failed to demonstrate that the the law is not discriminatory by design against Hispanic voters.
The department's head of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, wrote a a six-page letter to Texas' director of elections saying that Texas has not "sustained its burden" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. About 11 percent of Hispanic voters reportedly lack state-issued identification.
Perez wrote that while the state says the new photo ID requirement is to "ensure electoral integrity and deter ineligible voters from voting" the state "did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws."
Perez added that the number of people lacking any personal ID or driver's license issued by
the state ranges from from 603,892 to 795,955, but of that span, 29-38 percent of them are Hispanic.
"According to the state's own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification," Perez wrote.
"Even using the data most favorable to the state ... that disparity is statistically significant," he said.
A spokesman with the Texas Secretary of State's office, which runs the Elections Division, was not immediately available. However, a Democratic state lawmaker told the Houston Chronicle that he was thankful for the decision.
"Throughout the pre-clearance process, Texas consistently failed to produce information showing the law would not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. The Voting Rights Act exists for this exact purpose: protecting the ability of all Americans to access the ballot box," Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, told the newspaper.
Perez noted that the Texas law allowed voters to show military ID, a U.S. citizenship certificate, a U.S. passport or a license to carry a concealed handgun, but the state did not provide any statistics noting how many people lack state ID but have the other allowable forms.
"Nor has the state provided any data on the demographic makeup of such voters," Perez wrote.
Texas is the second state to have its voter ID law challenged. The Justice Department already blocked a similar law from taking effect in South Carolina -- the first time a voter ID law was rejected by the department in nearly 20 years.
South Carolina sued Holder in response, arguing that enforcement of its new law will not disenfranchise any voters.
As for the Texas law, Perez wrote that while lawmakers offered to make election identification certificates available to protect low-income voters who don't already have any ID, the documents are not free, and it creates the additional burden of traveling to a driver's license office, undergoing an application process that includes fingerprinting and finding supporting documentation to prove one's identity.
Using Census data, the Justice Department argued that the law creates an undue hardship on Hispanic populations that don't have the means to get a vehicle, live extremely far from a driver's license office or can't make it during the offices' limited operating hours.
Upon a federal court order, Texas recently changed its March 1 primary date to May 29 after a months-long fight over redistricting.
Published March 12, 2012
| FoxNews.com
ballot_texas_110210.jpg
AP
FILE: Voters are shown in this Nov. 2, 2010, photo casting ballots in Texas.
The Justice Department is objecting to a new photo ID law in Texas for voters, saying the state has failed to demonstrate that the the law is not discriminatory by design against Hispanic voters.
The department's head of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, wrote a a six-page letter to Texas' director of elections saying that Texas has not "sustained its burden" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. About 11 percent of Hispanic voters reportedly lack state-issued identification.
Perez wrote that while the state says the new photo ID requirement is to "ensure electoral integrity and deter ineligible voters from voting" the state "did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws."
Perez added that the number of people lacking any personal ID or driver's license issued by
the state ranges from from 603,892 to 795,955, but of that span, 29-38 percent of them are Hispanic.
"According to the state's own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification," Perez wrote.
"Even using the data most favorable to the state ... that disparity is statistically significant," he said.
A spokesman with the Texas Secretary of State's office, which runs the Elections Division, was not immediately available. However, a Democratic state lawmaker told the Houston Chronicle that he was thankful for the decision.
"Throughout the pre-clearance process, Texas consistently failed to produce information showing the law would not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. The Voting Rights Act exists for this exact purpose: protecting the ability of all Americans to access the ballot box," Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, told the newspaper.
Perez noted that the Texas law allowed voters to show military ID, a U.S. citizenship certificate, a U.S. passport or a license to carry a concealed handgun, but the state did not provide any statistics noting how many people lack state ID but have the other allowable forms.
"Nor has the state provided any data on the demographic makeup of such voters," Perez wrote.
Texas is the second state to have its voter ID law challenged. The Justice Department already blocked a similar law from taking effect in South Carolina -- the first time a voter ID law was rejected by the department in nearly 20 years.
South Carolina sued Holder in response, arguing that enforcement of its new law will not disenfranchise any voters.
As for the Texas law, Perez wrote that while lawmakers offered to make election identification certificates available to protect low-income voters who don't already have any ID, the documents are not free, and it creates the additional burden of traveling to a driver's license office, undergoing an application process that includes fingerprinting and finding supporting documentation to prove one's identity.
Using Census data, the Justice Department argued that the law creates an undue hardship on Hispanic populations that don't have the means to get a vehicle, live extremely far from a driver's license office or can't make it during the offices' limited operating hours.
Upon a federal court order, Texas recently changed its March 1 primary date to May 29 after a months-long fight over redistricting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)