Wednesday, August 29, 2012

In the Wake of Hurricane Isaac, Republicans Purpose Disaster Relief Spending Cuts.

PHOTO: Hurricane Katrina flooding in New Orleans, 2005. Photo Credit: AP Photo/David J. Phillip.
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES: Tropical Storm Isaac is more than just a logistical inconvenience for Republicans gathered in Tampa: it is a powerful reminder both of Republican incompetence in handling Hurricane Katrina seven years ago, and the party’s no-less-disastrous plans to further cut emergency-related spending.  
That is not something you will hear Paul Ryan talk about this week at the convention, nor any of the other lawmakers who make simplistic promises about the power of slashing government spending. But the budgets assembled by Mr. Ryan and warmly embraced by Mitt Romney severely cut spending for emergency preparedness, exactly the kind of money needed in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and scores of other states for this and future storms.
TPJ: If you live in an area prone to at least one of the following: hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or wildfires, you better hope Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan aren't elected. It all sounds great to get a bigger tax return by cutting government programs until the real world smacks you in the face in the form of a tornado or hurricane. The costs of which outstrip the amount of your tax return. The government is there to do the things that we can not do on our own.

We all want to be rugged individuals but we can't make it in this life without help. I'm proud to pay my taxes because I want to help my community since I know I can't do it all on my own either. If I want and need help then I must be ready and willing to help others. The whole point of a community or country is to join hands and help each other do the things we can't do on our own.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Legalizing Marijuana Could Save U.S. $13 BILLION a Year!!


The war on marijuana has done nothing to curb the use of the drug but it has done a lot toward draining state and federal budgets. According to The Huffington Post:
More than 300 economists, including three noble laureates, have signed a petition calling attention to the findings of a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, which suggests that if the government legalized marijuana it would save $7.7 billion annually by not having to enforce the current prohibition on the drug. The report added that legalization would save an additional $6 billion per year if the government taxed marijuana at rates similar to alcohol and tobacco.
TPJ: Instead, that is money that could be used to reduce the national and state debts, better fund our schools, improve transportation systems and improve police resources for solving violent crimes or cold cases. It's time to acknowledge that: 1) Marijuana prohibition isn't working. 2) Marijuana isn't a dangerous drug. 3) Legalizing it could save billions of dollars and reduce teen access to the drug. 3) Drastically reduce drug cartel violence on the Mexican border since 60% of their income comes from illegal marijuana. It's time we legalize marijuana so that we can better regulate it and benefit from tax dollars rather than it draining tax dollars.

A 2012 measure to legalize marijuana and regulate it like alcohol is favored by a solid majority of  Colorado voters, and has been for much of the last year. A recent Rasmussen Poll showed 61% of likely voters favor the amendment and only 27% oppose it. America is becoming educated about marijuana and realizing the government scare tactics are simply pure propaganda.

Marijuana isn't a gateway drug since most people drink alcohol before using marijuana. Yet no one is saying alcohol is a gateway drug, and that's because it's legal. However, the attitudes against alcohol during prohibition were no less ridiculous than the ones today about pot. The times they are a changing, and it's about time. If you live in Colorado, I ask you to consider voting to legalize marijuana. Take a look at all the pros and cons but I think that you'll support legalization if you study it with an open mind.

Parents like that legalizing marijuana would take it out of the hands of the unregulated black market and put it behind locked doors, which makes it harder for teens to access. As it is today, a drug dealer isn't going to ask for identification proving that one is of legal age to buy marijuana. Yet, a legal marijuana store would card everyone at the door. Liberals like the freedom aspect and even some conservatives support legalization seeing the role of government in prohibition as unnecessary. The world didn't crash when pot was legalized for medicinal purposes and it won't if it is legalized across the board. Anyway you look at it, legalization of marijuana to regulate it like alcohol is the only reasonable policy after a failed war on the relatively benign substance.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Mitt Romney's Birther Joke.

The Republican Party has become a rabid party of extremists, and you need look no further than the "birther" propaganda to see why. Criticism is to be expected in political campaigns, but suggesting that a sitting president of the United States wasn't born in America is outrageously irresponsible and bordering on seditious. How can voters be expected to take a party seriously that won't even accept the sitting president as a legitimate, American citizen? That's not just negative campaigning about his policies, it's suggesting treasonous behavior by President Obama.

Eight years ago, Republican presidential candidate and respected war-hero, John McCain, refused to condone the "birther" non-sense. He admirably corrected a woman at a rally who suggested Obama was not the man he claims to be. However, unfortunately, Mitt Romney is no John McCain.

So, to hear Mitt Romney giving into this repugnant slander exposes the kind of tone a President Romney would bring to the White House. Imagine the justifiable outrage that would erupt if President Obama made a joke about Romney's Mormonism? This kind of slanderous talk is the epitome of today's angry, bitter and cruel Republican party. It's a party that believes there should be no exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother was in danger.

President Obama and the Democrats are trying to find compromise on the big issues of the day, yet the partner they have to negotiate with believes our president is an illegal alien. That's not a serious party looking to compromise with the other side. It's party that would rather fight than solve problems.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Paul Ryan Claims His Views on Women, Abortion, Rape and Birth Control are "Distractions" from More Important Things.

Ladies, did you know that you're reproductive health is a distraction from more important issues? Yes, according to "forcible rape" Ryan, being raped is a distraction. Listen to Ryan say it in his own words:
As for birth control, Paul Ryan says that no one is trying to limit access to birth control. Well, that might work if you haven't been paying attention to what the Republicans have been doing in the House of Representatives. But to insiders and junkies alike, Ryan is trying to deflect attention from bills such as the one proposed by conservative Senator Roy Blunt, "...that would have overridden the Obama Administration's new contraception coverage rule and allowed any employer to refuse to cover any kind of health care service by citing 'moral reasons.'" As a Catholic, Paul Ryan should know that actions speak louder than his words. 
Of course Ryan and Romney are trying to claim Ryan's connection to the Aiken/forcible rape/abortion scandal a distraction because they got caught with their hand in the radicalism cookie jar. Back when no one was paying attention to the doings of Congress, Paul Ryan probably didn't think his support for a bill that sought to redefine rape would haunt him later-on. Yet, now that Ryan is in the spot-light as a potential vice-president, and for his connections to Rep. Todd Aiken, he's trying to hide that past by clearly stating, "rape is rape." In terms of a distraction, I think Ryan brought up the idea of a distraction because he would love for something to distract the public and the media away from his radical record in Congress.
Apparently, rape and birth control are not important enough to Paul Ryan to discuss on the presidential level, which should tell you everything you need to know on how today's Republican Party views women; as distractions. So, ladies, show Paul Ryan that you aren't a distraction. Show Paul Ryan that you are indeed the majority of voters in America by voting against the Romney-Ryan candidacy. 

---End of Transmission---

Paul Ryan Abandons his "Forcible Rape" Buddy, Todd Aiken, Along with His Catholic Values.

During Paul Ryan's first speech as Mitt Romney's vice-presidential choice, The Washington Post reports that he said that he wouldn't duck the tough issues. Yet now that people want to know what he meant by "forcible rape" he refuses to talk about it!! So much for not ducking the tough issues!! I can't think of a tougher issue for Ryan than explaining why his name is connected with Rep. Todd Aiken on a bill that tries to delineate between rape and "forcible rape!!" Yet, what is Rep. Paul Ryan doing? Ducking the issue!!

In that same speech, Ryan also said that he wouldn't blame others. Yet now, Ryan is is trying to blame his "forcible rape" buddy, Todd Aiken, for questions the media is asking he, Ryan, about their shared radical beliefs on "forcible rape." Namely, Ryan is trying to force Todd Aiken out of his senate race.

According to Rep. Aiken via Matt Lauer and Slate magazine, Aiken said, "Yes, Paul Ryan did give me a call and he felt I had to make a decision, but he advised me that it would be good for me to step down." Here in America, that's called throwing someone under the bus, which basically means exposing a friend as the guilty party so you won't receive as much attention. In this case, Paul Ryan threw Todd Aiken "under the bus" in a hopeless attempt to deflect attention from Ryan's own radical abortion views.

He went on to say in The Washington Post article that he wouldn't replace his founding principles. Yet, now that the Todd Aiken scandal has exposed his own radical beliefs on abortion and rape, Ryan has replaced those strongly held Catholic principles with ones that would give him a greater chance of becoming vice-president. I wonder if he paid 30 pieces of silver to Romney after forsaking his here-to-for "strongly-held" beliefs. Paul Ryan is no improvement upon Romney. Either Ryan is for some crazy "forcible rape" provision in abortion legislation or he's sold out his Catholic faith. In either case, he'll be rejected as being inconsistent and hypocritical, which is what happens when you try to be all things to all people. In the end, you please no one.

These radical, conservative, politicians love to stand against the mainstream on abortion and other social issues, but when these candidates' poll numbers drop, those supposed "values" go right out the window.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Despite Deferring to Romney, Paul Ryan's Personal Beliefs on Rape are Still Akin to Those of Todd Aiken.


By now we know that Mitt Romney's vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, shares Representative Todd Aiken's belief that abortion shouldn't be available to victims of rape. However, now, Ryan is trying to walk away from his radical positions on women's health by deferring to Romney. According to "The Huffington Post," Ryan stated that, "Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration." This is true, but if a health emergency befell a possible President Romney, Paul Ryan would then become president. That would give him full power to pursue his radical agenda of curtailing women's rights and chopping Medicare into pieces.

Just the simple selection of Ryan tells American voters that a Mitt Romney presidency would be closer to a radical, Tea Party administration than a moderate Republican one. Besides, any political junkie will tell you that a vice-president does have influence on presidents when they set policy. It therefore should terrify socially moderate Americans to think of having a radical like Paul Ryan whispering in a potential President Romney's ear. Again, Ryan's personal beliefs aren't that different than the extreme views on abortion of Representative Todd Aiken. Even though he's deferring to Romney, his personal belief that abortion should be allowed for rape victims still stands. "I'm proud of my pro-life record," Ryan said. "And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress."

Is this the path we want to lead our young women down? Back to the days when PMS was deemed a psychiatric condition??? Do we really want to go back to the days of the "coat hanger?" Are we ready to charge women who get abortions with murder? I would guess most Americans would revolt against such a mentality and that means supporting President Obama. He understands women better than the Romney-Ryan ticket. He is surrounded by strong women in his life: Michelle, Michelle's mother and his two, beautiful daughters. He has made it a priority to appeal to women's unique needs. Romney and Ryan seem to think helping women is optional.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Romney's VP, Paul Ryan, Has Similar Rape Beliefs as Rep. Todd Aiken.

Mitt Romney's vice-presidential pick, Paul Ryan, is getting caught up in the wake of Republican Representative Todd Aiken's rape comments. In Congress, Ryan and Aiken have been joined at the hip in regards to "redefining" rape. Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Rep. Todd Aiken that would narrow the definition of rape.

The bill stated that only women who were "forcibly raped" should be allowed to have an abortion. As if there is any other kind of rape than forced. Apparently, Paul Ryan and Todd Aiken believe a woman must be beaten to a pulp while being impregnated from rape to justify an abortion!!

The problem for the Romney team is that Todd Aiken's radical views on women's bodies shines light on Paul Ryan's own radical views. Ryan also supported a bill that would make a woman's fertilized egg a "person" which would make all abortion illegal, criminalize some forms of birth control and in-vitro fertilization!! He also wants to require that women seeking an abortion submit to an ultra-sound before following through with the medical procedure.

Women should think twice before voting for the Romney-Ryan team in November. Men should also be concerned about the repercussions of Paul Ryan influence in a Romney-led White House. We must stand with the women and daughters of this country and reject the radical politicians of Todd Aiken and Paul Ryan by voting for President Obama. A president who has two daughters and is thus sensitive to the future they'd inherit.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, August 20, 2012

Romney's Vice-President, Paul Ryan, Opposes Equal Pay for Women.

Would someone please show Republican politicians a calender? Because they seem stuck in the 1950s with their outdated views about women's issues. Of course, everyone is talking about the outrageous remarks by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) who claimed:
...victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant. In an interview with KTVI-TV on Sunday, the GOP Senate nominee was asked if he supported abortion in the case of rape. "From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."  
TPJ: First of all, what is "legitimate rape?" It's comments like this that keep some women from reporting sexual assaults because they fear not being believed. By the way, rape has nothing to do with sex, it's about assault. But, as if that comment isn't bad enough, Aiken goes on to assert this preposterous remark that somehow women have some "emergency shut-down switch" when rape occurs!! I fear for the women who live in this guy's district. I am pleased though that his opponent in the up-coming November election is Senator Claire McCaskill. She's no push-over. She is a proven leader on women's rights and without her women would be forced to put up with idiots like Representative Aiken. He is but the latest of Republican politicians waging war on women. Mitt Romney himself would end funding to Planned Parenthood, which provides low-cost reproductive services and cancer screenings to countless women.

His side-kick, Representative Paul Ryan, is no friend to women either. He is opposed to equal pay for women!! That's right, Paul Ryan voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pair Act that helps women have greater recourse in the workplace over pay discrimination. Opposing that act is especially harmful to women during this sluggish economy. It's not uncommon these days that women are the main income earner in house-holds, so unequal pay for women hurts families and especially children. Think of all the single mothers out there who need that money just to maintain a basic sense of fiscal security!!

Representative Paul Ryan also opposes a women's right to an abortion in the case of rape. If Paul Ryan becomes Vice-President, he would champion an America that would force a child raped by her father to give birth to that baby!! It's outrageous and draconian.

It's clear that a vote for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the Republicans is a vote against women and women's issues. President Obama has shown time and time again that he is an advocate for women; the fair pay act and health care reform being just two examples.

---End of Transmission---


Friday, August 17, 2012

Romney-Ryan Mislead Voters About Obama and Medicare.


Mitt Romney and his V.P. choice, Paul Ryan, are misleading American voters about President Obama's actions on Medicare. They are claiming that Obama is "cutting" roughly $700 billion out of Medicare to help fund Obamcare.

However, what they won't tell you is that the president got that money through eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. In addition, the rest comes from reducing the amount of money that providers (insurance companies and drug companies) get through Medicare.
What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. 
Don't believe me? Click here to read what a non-partisan "fact checking" organization says about it.

The other thing that Romney, nor Paul Ryan, will tell you is that their plan would cut just as much money from Medicare. However, instead of getting it from the greedy insurance companies as Obama will do, the Romney-Ryan plan takes that money out by cutting the benefits of beneficiaries:
The Romney-Ryan plan, by contrast, achieves its savings by turning Medicare into a voucher whose value doesn’t keep up with expected increases in healthcare costs — thereby shifting the burden onto Medicare beneficiaries, who will have to pay an average of $6,500 a year more for their Medicare insurance, according to an analysis of the Republican plan by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Anyway you look at it, the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare is brutal to both seniors and future retirees.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Romney and V.P. Choice, Paul Ryan, Agree to End Medicare as We Know It.


Mitt Romney's Medicare plan is the same plan as the one purposed by his radically Libertarian running-mate, Paul Ryan. In fact, Romney worded it as them being "identical." The Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program, which is essentially a coupon of $8,000 to buy insurance on the private market.

I don't know if you know many people on Medicare but most are disabled, seriously ill or elderly. Buying insurance on the private market is hard for anyone let alone if you're 80 years old or mentally disabled. In addition, a large portion of people in those categories have medical costs above $8,000 a year because of their poor medical condition.

The Ryan plan also would turn Medicare into a for-profit business for insurance companies.

Voting for Mitt Romney is voting to deny the elderly, severely ill and disabled enough money to pay for their medical costs. Does voting for such a plan coincide with your religious or philosophical values? Think about it for awhile, and I hope you realize that the only compassionate thing to do is vote for President Obama.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

GOP Insiders Worried Ryan Pick Cedes Election to Obama.

This from Politico.com:
Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren’t being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington: Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right — and a huge chance of going horribly wrong.
TPJ: Mainstream Republicans know that Paul Ryan isn't the kind of Republican that can appeal to Independent voters. The Romney campaign says that Paul Ryan's plan to drastically cut Medicare would only affect people younger than 55. In other words, people who haven't retired yet. However, the non-partisan, independent Congressional Budget Office has reported that current beneficiaries would see a $6,500 increase in yearly Medicare costs. So, don't believe the Republican rhetoric that the Romney-Ryan cuts wouldn't affect current seniors.

But, it's not just Medicare. The Paul Ryan budget plan lowers the overall tax rate for the rich from 35% to 25%. As a comparison, the top tax rate under President Clinton was 39% when the economy was booming. The Clinton era reminds us that higher taxes on the rich don't destroy the economy. In fact, if extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich were supposed to improve the economy, why haven't they done so? The Bush tax cuts for the rich were enacted over a decade ago, and not only did they not improve the economy, they failed to prevent the Great Recession!!

Mitt Romney has essentially endorsed the disastrous Ryan budget:

“I think it’d be marvelous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan’s budget and to adopt it and pass it along to the president,” Romney once professed while in Wisconsin.

Paul Ryan's plan is so disastrous to anyone but the rich that he has the Catholic nuns after him, and Ryan himself is Catholic!! I'm not a Catholic, but I do know not to mess with Catholic nuns!! According to Raw Story:
The nuns are not the only Catholic group to have criticized Ryan’s budget. Referencing Matthew 25, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have claimed that budget cuts in Ryan’s budget plan are “unjustified and wrong.” Ryan’s plan would cut programs for low and moderate-income people while allowing defense funding to remain well above the automatic 10 percent cut, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Do you think cuts to Medicare to give the rich even more tax dollars is "marvelous?" If you feel as I do that the wealthy should pay their fair share and not cut Medicare then the choice is clear, President Obama must be re-elected.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, August 13, 2012

Romney V.P. Choice Too Radical for America. Would End Medicare as We Know It.


Mitt Romney has just named Paul Ryan as his Vice-Presidential running mate. He's not your average politician. Ryan is a radical hell-bent on ending Medicare and Social Security as we know it. This will make retirement for people under 55 extremely difficult to impossible. He would alter the middle-class for generations. Paul Ryan's plan screws younger voters by whittling away their benefits to the point of essentially getting a coupon for their elder years. Young voters have already paid a lot into the system as it is. Such selfish recklessness is like stealing from your kids piggy bank to pay for your retirement, which reduces the amount of money those children will have later on to retire themselves.

Republicans claim to care about future generations, but Paul Ryan shows us that just isn't true. There's a solution to help make Medicare and Social Security last for everyone, and that's making the ultra-wealthy pay a bit more in taxes. As well as means testing as the ultra-wealthy don't need those benefits. As it is, the Romney-Ryan plan cuts the deficit by chopping away Medicare and Social Security benefits for people under the age 55 while asking the rich to pay nothing extra in taxes.

Does that sound like the America that we use to know? The America that favored the middle-class who built this country? The Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class, which is kind of like killing, "the goose that laid the golden eggs." The goose that laid golden eggs is generally used of a short-sighted action that destroys the profitability of an asset.

One version of the story has the goose's owner demand that it lay two eggs a day; when it replied that it could not, the owner killed it. The middle-class is that goose, a goose that keeps America growing and working but without basic benefits and security, that middle-class can't continue to fuel the American economy that the rich benefit from so greatly. It is the workers that make the "golden eggs" so to favor the rich over the middle-class, as the Romney-Ryan budget does, is economic suicide for America.

---End of Transmission--- 

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Mitt Romney Confused About Purpose of Public Lands.

 
THINK PROGRESS: Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney likes to sing about America the beautiful, but he mainly seems interested in mining it. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal last night, Mitt Romney expressed his ignorance of why the United States owns and manages approximately 80 percent of Nevada‘s land, most of it uninhabitable mountains and desert. In response to a question about whether he would sell public lands back to the state, Romney stated that that “I haven’t studied it, what the purpose is of the land”:
Ummm, really??? He doesn't know why we have federal land? How about these reasons: First, because they allow all Americans places where they can enjoy the natural world. It might be the only natural land some Americans will ever enjoy visiting. Especially if they come from an urban city.

REASON #2: They help prevent urban sprawl, and all the pollution it brings. In addition to other ecological benefits such as allowing for a strong animal population for hunters. These natural, federal lands help clean the air that we breath. Want to see the difference? Go to China where they've stripped a lot of the land for mining. The air in a lot of Chinese towns is black and foggy because of few regulations on air quality standards. Guess who wants to reduce regulations on the environment, mining and the Environmental Protect Agency? Mitt Romney!! Republicans talk big about doing away with regulations but won't talk about the unintended consequences. Think regulations are bad? Read up on a period in American history called, "The Guilded Age" and read the books, Oliver Twist and The Jungle. You'll see why America has so many regulations!!

REASON #3: National parks and federal land draw tourists from around the world who spend money in towns near the national parks. Tourists who support small businesses and create jobs in the private sector. They also allow further jobs for rural areas working for the national parks and federal land management bureaus. These are tourists who would disappear if we dot the landscape with ugly, dirty, strip mines and such.

In related news, Romney thinks clean jobs don't exist. You know, jobs in wind, solar and other alternative energy industries. That must come as a shock to those currently working in alternative energy companies!! But the main point is that Romney is flat wrong by dismissing alternative energy jobs. "The Center for American Progress has done a study that shows that not only do they exist today, but that the American West has tremendous potential for billions more in clean energy investments and hundreds of thousands of additional jobs." Some of those jobs are in Romney's adopted state of Utah, the "Mecca" of his religion!!

Mitt Romney needs to read the history of one of America's greatest presidents, Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who started the national park system. He was a Republican who truly believed in conserving, not just traditions but also our beautiful lands.

---End of Transmission---