Showing posts with label No Republican Left Behind. Show all posts

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The unemployment benefits vote

Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:23 PM EST

A measure to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed failed in the House today by a vote of 258 to 154. This marks the first time Congress has refused to extend benefits when the unemployment rate was higher than 7.2 percent -- it now stands at 9.6 percent.
The full roll-call vote is after the jump.

Democrats are in Roman, Republicans in bold.

THE YEAS:

Ackerman, Adler (NJ), Altmire, Andrews, Arcuri, Baca, Baird, Baldwin, Barrow, Bean, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Bilbray, Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Blumenauer, Boccieri, Boren, Boswell, Boucher, Brady (PA), Braley (IA), Butterfield
Capps, Capuano, Cardoza, Carnahan, Carney, Carson (IN), Castle, Castor (FL), Chandler, Childers, Chu, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Cohen, Connolly (VA), Conyers, Costa, Costello, Courtney, Critz, Crowley, Cuellar, Cummings, Dahlkemper, Davis (AL), Davis (CA), Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette, DeLauro, Dent, Deutch, Diaz-Balart, L., Diaz-Balart, M., Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Donnelly (IN), Doyle, Driehaus
Edwards (MD), Edwards (TX), Ehlers, Ellison, Ellsworth, Engel, Eshoo, Etheridge, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Foster, Frank (MA), Fudge, Garamendi, Gerlach, Giffords, Gonzalez, Gordon (TN), Grayson, Green, Al, Green, Gene, Grijalva, Gutierrez,
Hall (NY), Halvorson, Hare, Harman, Hastings (FL), Heinrich, Heller, Herseth Sandlin, Higgins, Himes, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Hirono, Hodes, Holden, Holt, Honda, Hoyer, Inslee, Israel
Jackson (IL), Jackson Lee (TX), Johnson (GA), Johnson (IL), Johnson, E. B., Jones, Kagen, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kildee, Kilpatrick (MI), Kilroy, Kind, Kirkpatrick (AZ), Kissell, Klein (FL), Kosmas, Kratovil, Kucinich,
Langevin, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), LaTourette, Lee (CA), Levin, Lewis (GA), Lipinski, LoBiondo, Loebsack, Lofgren, Zoe, Lowey, Luján, Maffei, Maloney, Manzullo, Markey (CO), Markey (MA), Marshall, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy (NY), McCollum, McCotter, McDermott, McGovern, McIntyre, McNerney, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Melancon, Michaud, Miller (NC), Miller, George, Mitchell, Mollohan, Moore (KS), Moore (WI), Murphy (CT), Murphy (NY), Murphy, Patrick, Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY), Napolitano, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Obey, Olver, Ortiz, Owens, Pallone, Pascrell, Pastor (AZ), Payne, Pelosi, Perlmutter, Perriello, Peters, Pingree (ME), Platts, Polis (CO), Pomeroy, Posey, Price (NC), Quigley
Rahall, Rangel, Reichert, Reyes, Richardson, Rodriguez, Ros-Lehtinen, Ross, Rothman (NJ), Roybal-Allard, Ruppersberger, Rush, Ryan (OH)
Salazar, Sánchez, Linda T., Sanchez, Loretta, Sarbanes, Schakowsky, Schauer, Schiff, Schrader, Schwartz, Scott (GA), Scott (VA), Serrano, Sestak, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Sires, Skelton, Slaughter, Smith (NJ), Smith (WA), Snyder, Speier, Spratt, Stark, Stupak, Sutton
Tanner, Teague, Thompson (CA), Thompson (MS), Tierney, Titus, Tonko, Towns, Tsongas, Turner
Van Hollen, Velázquez, Visclosky, Walz, Wasserman Schultz, Waters, Watson, Watt, Waxman, Weiner, Welch, Wilson (OH), Woolsey, Wu, Yarmuth

THE NAYS:

Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Austria, Bachmann, Bachus, Bartlett, Barton (TX), Berry, Biggert, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Bono Mack, Boustany, Boyd, Brady (TX), Bright, Broun (GA), Buchanan, Burgess, Burton (IN), Buyer
Calvert, Camp, Campbell, Cantor, Cao, Capito, Carter, Cassidy, Chaffetz, Coffman (CO), Cole, Conaway, Cooper, Crenshaw, Culberson, Davis (TN), Djou, Dreier
Emerson, Flake, Fleming, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Garrett (NJ), Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Griffith, Guthrie
Hall (TX), Harper, Hastings (WA), Hensarling, Herger, Hill, Hoekstra, Hunter, Inglis, Issa, Jenkins, Johnson, Sam, Jordan (OH), King (IA), King (NY), Kingston, Kline (MN)
Lamborn, Lance, Latham, Latta, Lee (NY), Lewis (CA), Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Lummis, Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack, Marchant, McCarthy (CA), McCaul, McClintock, McHenry, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller (MI), Miller, Gary, Minnick, Myrick
Neugebauer, Nunes, Nye, Olson, Paul, Paulsen, Pence, Peterson, Petri, Pitts, Poe (TX), Price (GA), Putnam
Rehberg, Roe (TN), Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Rooney, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Scalise, Schmidt, Schock, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Shimkus, Shuler, Shuster, Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Stearns, Stutzman, Sullivan
Taylor, Thompson (PA), Thornberry, Tiahrt, Tiberi, Upton, Walden, Wamp, Whitfield, Wilson (SC), Wittman, Wolf, Young (AK), Young (FL)

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Minnesota - Session for flood relief is called - & Comments

Session for flood relief is called

The Legislature will consider on Monday spending up to $80 million on disaster relief for southern Minnesota.

By PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune

Last update: October 14, 2010 - 9:26 PM

On the heels of a federal disaster declaration for much of southern Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has called a special legislative session for Monday to consider spending up to $80 million in state money on disaster relief.
The funding, tentatively worked out by the governor and legislative leaders earlier this week, would pay expenses related to flood damage in 21 counties in September and tornado damage in northern Minnesota and elsewhere in June.
The federal declaration clears the way for grants for debris removal and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities. It includes federal grants to mitigate potential flooding. It does not include money for individual property owners, which federal disaster officials turned down Thursday.
Upon getting word of that rejection, Pawlenty sent a letter to the Small Business Administration, asking for low-interest disaster loans for homeowners, renters, businesses and private, nonprofit organizations.
In his letter, Pawlenty wrote that 183 homes and 41 businesses were destroyed or substantially damaged by the floods.
"We thank the federal government for providing assistance that will help Minnesota communities in their rebuilding efforts, and we look forward to their decision on help for individuals who were affected by flooding last month," Pawlenty said earlier Thursday.
Total state-federal funding for the disaster relief for public facilities and land could reach $140 million. The state's portion would come mostly from $32.5 million in general funds and $26.7 million in general obligation bonds.
The tentative agreement between the governor and legislative leaders calls for spending $73.6 million in state money on relief for flood damage that occurred in September, and another $6.6 million on tornadoes and other weather damage from June and July.

The federal disaster declaration announced Wednesday evening clears the way for assistance for flood damage to Blue Earth, Cottonwood, Dodge, Faribault, Freeborn, Goodhue, Jackson, Lincoln, Lyon, Martin, Mower, Murray, Olmsted, Pipestone, Rice, Rock, Steele, Wabasha, Waseca, Watonwan and Winona counties.
In northern Minnesota, the city of Wadena would get $750,000 to design new public buildings wrecked in a June tornado. Another $5.2 million would cover damage in July to communities in central and southern Minnesota.
The special session is scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday. Pawlenty and lawmakers had previously predicted it would take less than a day, but there is a possibility other issues could arise.
Two DFL legislators have proposed anti-bullying legislation to laws against harassment in schools. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, both DFLers from Minneapolis, have not said whether they would hear the anti-bullying bill. But Pogemiller issued a statement Wednesday saying "we've all worked very hard" on the flood and tornado disaster relief legislation. "We are not going to let anything get in the way of this much-needed disaster relief bill."
Pawlenty has said the session should be limited to disaster relief.
The anti-bullying bill would need a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to be taken up during a one-day special session.
*******************************************************************************

Is the absentee gov

really in Minnesota? Or is he calling from Ohio, New Hamphire or from one of his taxpayer paid globe trotting trips somewhere else in the world?

posted by bigmama1954 on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:20 AM |

Pawlenty sets special session for Monday

Who?

posted by buckdharma on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:21 AM |

It's about time

How come it took him so long? Needed Obama to get the ball rolling on this. Cheers to Obama!

posted by caresalot on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:21 AM |

The anti bullying cry is complete crap

Gee, let me guess which kid YOU were on the playground.

posted by buckdharma on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:22 AM |

posted by MuffyAl on Oct 14, 10 at 8:15 am

your comment is beyond offensive!!!!! Anyone who has had a family member commit suicide for ANY reason should have you in a room to explain yourself and your comment then listen to what life has been like for them AFTER their family member committed suicide. A very narcissistic comment. If the word is too big for you to understand....look it up in Webster's.

posted by bigmama1954 on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:24 AM |

Yay for Pawlenty.

posted by greatcomment on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:28 AM |

This might be

the first thing this guy's ever done as Governor. He may have also gotten the silver polished at the mansion too, but I can't remember.

posted by tinitini on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:28 AM |

This special session should be free

to the tax payers of this state...

posted by idontthinkso on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:44 AM |

Focus on Disaster Aid

This Special Session is not a DFL wishing party, it is about Disaster Aid for the people flooded out of their homes. Stick to the subject and stop pushing "Pork"!

posted by stumped on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:53 AM |

buckdharma

I guess we know which kid you were....

posted by ravenmx on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:58 AM |

Stop The Bullying Of Risk Takers By The DFL

and liberals!

posted by timetopay on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:59 AM |

Some Federal Money is Fine

This, but not money for jobs and health care.

posted by davemec on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:03 AM |

Thats all fine and dandy....

But why has he spent about 80% of his time out of the state since he decided not to run for another term? Maybe he should only get 20% of what he's supposed to get paid. That would be fine by me because if I don't show up for work I don't get paid.

posted by tjohnson98 on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:07 AM |

Sarah Palins Maid of Honor

was considerate enough to squeeze a day away from his "I am not running for President" campaign. How thoughtful and caring and kind. He has got to be the best Governor we have ever had. It is unfortunate he didn't run for reelection but he will be the next President so we will still be able to see and hear him. Good luck President Sarah Palins Maid of Honor.

posted by edbradly77 on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:13 AM |

Thats all fine and dandy.... But why has he spent about 80% of his time out of the state since he decided not to run for another term? posted by tjohnson98

Doncha know he going to be the next President. He has all the bonifides and the gravitas he needs to be the next President. Sarah Palins Maid of Honor is made of pure Presidential Timber.

posted by edbradly77 on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:18 AM |

buckdharma I guess we know which kid you were.... posted by ravenmx

Yeah, I was the guy that beat up the bullies.

posted by buckdharma on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:22 AM |

Hope he can find his way to his office.

posted by jnelson25 on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:26 AM |

Suprised the president finally found time between vacations and golf

to declare the disaster. He's no faster than during the gulf oil spill.

posted by lightenup on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:36 AM |

Stop the bullying bill

It is not about bullying, it is about locking YOU up. We already have laws on the books, this new one is going to be used against YOU.

posted by wayways on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:40 AM |

I thought he was against federal government aid? Or is he against aid only to those who will not be advantageous to his future political aspirations?

posted by sarahanne on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:44 AM |

Do you see how this can turn against you in your every day life? Definitions of bullying on the Web:

the act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do something, blustery: noisily domineering; tending to browbeat others, comprises repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group, In a bullying manner, includes behaviors and actions that are verbal, physical and/or anti-social, such as exclusion, gossip and non-verbal body language, is the 'repeated less favourable treatment of a person by another or others, which may be considered unreasonable and inappropriate, is behaviour that can intimidate, offend, degrade or humiliate, Deliberate action or behaviour directed towards another person which may take many forms............... In otherwards, everything you do in your every day life could be considered bullying by another person. The teacher enforcing the anti bullying bill would be a BULLY. A parent telling their teen to do dishes before going out with friends would be a BULLY. Every boss would be a BULLY. Looking at somebody the wrong way will make YOU A BULLY. Being loud would make you a BULLY. This bill and all others like it are to make it easier to lock YOU up. This has nothing to do with bullies.

posted by wayways on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:47 AM |

Big Mama

Did you ever consider that there are other reasons why people commit sucicide? Known/unknown medical issues,family life and upbringing. Don't make bullying the scapegoat especially when some consider bullying as looking at someone funny. Buck up.

posted by MuffyAl on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:56 AM |

everything you do in your every day life could be considered bullying by another person.

That's to bad you're living your life that way wayways. Maybe having some kind words or jestures to you fellow man would help.

posted by rds1449 on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:58 AM |

How Much Additional Pork and Ammendments Can the DFL Controlled Legislature Attach to this Effort?

I guess we are gonna find out!

posted by newthoot on Oct. 14, 10 at 9:59 AM |

posted by MuffyAl on Oct 14, 10 at 9:56 am

Oh yes I HAVE considered many reasons why people commit suicide. I was speaking as a person left behind by someone who DID commit suicide. I have FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of what it is like and the trials and tribulations people go through before committing suicide. Consider all those forced into the military during VietNam...is that not another act of bullying...I do have first hand knowledge..obviously you do not have a clue.

posted by bigmama1954 on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:01 AM |

"We thank the federal government for providing assistance"

Oh yeah, I'm sure Pawlenty's down on his knees thanking the federal government. More likely, he was hoping they would screw this up so he could use it while he's in Iowa running for president.

posted by Starquest on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:09 AM |

Yo, hey DFL! Don't forget to sneak some anti-gun leglislation in

while people are *supposed* to be paying attention to disaster relief! And why don't you pass the "Rainbows In Every Home Act" while you are at it? We need our padded-playpen! It's "for the children" and "if saves just ONE child," it is "fair" and "equatable" and "just."

posted by futurics on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:15 AM |

We have a BULLY governor.

Pawlenty should answer for his failure to send the healthcare letter AND for hiding the fact that he DIDN'T.
"Thanks" to the feds? ya right. sincerity at its worst.

posted by reasonable2 on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:16 AM |

Republicans hate human beings.

They are united in their love of MONEY.

posted by reasonable2 on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:17 AM |

Sober up the gang....

there is free money to be spent.

posted by rkn55811 on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:18 AM |

Back To The Topic: Disaster Relief

The Governor and the Legislature are charged with helping Minnesotans who've been affected by the flooding. The Federal Government is providing Disaster Relief, the Special Session will hopefully provide an outline on how to distribute more disaster relief. We shouldn't be having a partisan mud fight about this. People have lost their homes and businesses. Whole communities were devastated. Roads and highways were literally washed away. The focus of the Governor, the Legislature, and indeed all Minnesotans should be to help all those affected by the flooding. Instead of partisan bickering on an internet comments page, donate to the Red Cross or Salvation Army.

posted by drbcoaster on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:25 AM |

rds1449

This has nothing to do with how I live my life. This has everything to do with how this new bill will be interpreted by those in authority and how it will be enforced and on WHO it will be enforced. According to the definition of a bully, a disfigured person could be considered a bully because of the way they look(reminded of the child that was scared of the downtown zombies). Rolling your eyes could be considered as a bully. Having a person wash a toilet(part of their job) would make you a bully. Saying no to your child would make you a bully. Just being a boss over others already makes that person a bully. A teacher is already considerd a bully by definition. Did you bother to read the definition of bully? It is a very loose term that in the wrong hands could be very dangerous to us all. Stop thinking everything that's for good is innocent and would never be abused(reminded of housing market wolves).

posted by wayways on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:27 AM |

Yo, hey DFL Controlled Legislature! How About Sneaking In Some Stuff Minnesotans Need?

Like an Arizona style law cracking down on illegal aliens and the corrupt employers that hire them?

posted by newthoot on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:27 AM |

Republicans hate human beings...

the Bible tells me so? What bible are you reading anyhow?

posted by newthoot on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:28 AM |

Whoopie and Joy just walked out on

Bill O'Reilly. It will be on the net soon. Watch it and applaud those two.

posted by wayways on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:33 AM |

Democrats.........

can't be trusted with power, all they want to do is enact more rule, laws, regulations, taxes and spending. It is ridiculous. The Governor will simply have to veto anything they pass that is beyond the reason for the special session. In fact, if I was the Governor I'd probably avoid the special session based on what the Democrats have said and they can deal with this next regular session. If the Dems want to pass some disaster relief then they should pledge they will do that in a special session and nothing more. I heard some idiotic politician say that bullying was an urgent issue that needed to be addressed...... huh? Really? There are plenty of laws on the books now that can deal with such things as well as school policies and of course..........parents! What a moron. These are the types of representatives we need to get rid of. Why don't more average folk with common sense start running?? Let's go people, it doesn't take rocket scientists to serve in the legislature. We need more people to step up and run and purge both parties of the entrenched "only we know what is good for you" type of politicians.

posted by inreality on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:48 AM |

Governor and legislature say no money for health care for vets but throw money at those who do not buy needed insurance

These politicians have misplaced priorities. They throw our vets needing health care under the bus but toss millions at those who just were not responsible enough to buy needed insurance. The politicians and the folks from the flooded area should be ashamed of themselves.

posted by minncitizen on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:50 AM |

keep the special session simple

can we please just address the main reason that the special session is being called for, disaster relief, and not bring up extra things? Save it for the regular session please DFL!

posted by kelliherh8tr on Oct. 14, 10 at 10:53 AM |

Vikings stadium

Do you think Wilf would be bold enough to ask for $800,000,000.00 for a stadium during this special session?

posted by rabidrat on Oct. 14, 10 at 11:52 AM |

and this is why we need every item voted on

no bundling bills. it is ruining the country.

posted by muskiedog on Oct. 14, 10 at 12:43 PM |

Pawlenty said the session should be limited to disaster relief.

I think that's the only correct thing he's ever said!!

posted by hope4all on Oct. 14, 10 at 12:50 PM |

minncitizen - do you even read these articles before you comment?

The federal declaration included grants for debris removal and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged, publicly-owned facilities. It also includes federal grants to mitigate potential flooding. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE MONEY FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. Quit your whining.

posted by wardnjune on Oct. 14, 10 at 12:59 PM |

Wonder how many flood victims are going to vote...

...for the Tea Party types of vote against gov't spending like this. Glad my "big gov't" taxes can help these communities in their time of need.

posted by mbrname4126 on Oct. 14, 10 at 1:53 PM |

You people are crazy!

If you think one of the flood victims wouldn't give up the aid in a second are nuts. Get over your petty partison hatred for one minute and consider whether or not you would accept help to clean up your home/neighborhood/community and replace damaged roads, etc. There is absolutely no empathy anymore. How about we all just agree to help our neighbors who have suffered from an act of nature.

posted by obstakes on Oct. 14, 10 at 2:00 PM |

Wonder how many flood victims are going to vote for the Tea Party types?

I have never heard any Tea Party types talking about NOT providing disaster relief for floods to Americans. It is the unnessary government spending and bloat that the Tea Party is fighting.

posted by newthoot on Oct. 14, 10 at 2:12 PM |

"This, but not money for jobs and health care..."

Yeah, right. Because unlike flood victims, people who get cancer or have their jobs sent to India brought it on themselves and don't deserve help. A flood - no problem. A terrible disease or years of joblessness - pull yourself by your own bootstraps. I'd rather pay more taxes and have compassionate help for all those in need.

posted by mbrname4126 on Oct. 14, 10 at 2:13 PM |

You cant make this stuff up.

libs sneaking in extra pork when ever they have the chance,Nov can't soon enough,wow

posted by dazel21 on Oct. 14, 10 at 3:16 PM |

mbrname4126

Here you go... From the Treasury Direct website: Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to: Attn Dept G Bureau Of the Public Debt P. O. Box 2188 Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

posted by laurieloo49 on Oct. 14, 10 at 3:19 PM |

But Pogemiller issued a statement Wednesday saying "we've all worked very hard" on the flood and tornado disaster relief legislation. "We are not going to let anything get in the way of this much needed disaster relief bill."

Maybe but is he trustworthy????

posted by mcleanm on Oct. 14, 10 at 3:54 PM |

Unemployed liberals and gov't "workers" posting in middle of the day

Fortunately, somebody's still working so you people can spend your day surfing.

posted by goldwater on Oct. 14, 10 at 8:20 PM |

Flood Relief?

How can we think of this when kids are being bullied? People will figure out how to live without the relief, we need to focus on the children.

posted by moodyhank on Oct. 15, 10 at 10:07 AM |

It does not include money for individual property owners...

Lookie, lookie, you don't matter. Feel bullied now, you will when the tax man comes a nocking.

posted by moodyhank on Oct. 15, 10 at 10:11 AM |

Like all government expenditures, the relief money will be spent in the private sector.

The State will hire contractors who will buy labor and materials and other services to mend State property.
This might give the 'stupids' pause, as they were told "guvment don't contribute nothin'" to the economy.
Yep, that's right kids, jobs will be created in the private sector, the place where all government spending occurs. Minnesota will go to the "free market" for what is needed.
I realize some do not approve of spending on other people, period. But that's just one particular kind of selfish conservative.

posted by reasonable2 on Oct. 15, 10 at 10:37 AM |

My Thoughts are..

Get in, get it done, and move on.
posted by donm251 on Oct. 15, 10 at 7:14 PM |

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Governor's veto ax falls heavily on welfare, child care and special education programs

Schwarzenegger vetoes nearly $1 billion for social programs before signing the budget bill lawmakers had passed about eight hours earlier. Advocates for the poor say the cuts are too deep.

By Jack Dolan and Shane Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times

October 9, 2010

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday vetoed nearly $1 billion in spending on welfare, child care, special education and other programs before signing the budget bill that lawmakers had passed about eight hours earlier after a marathon overnight session.

The governor slashed 23 line items from the $87.5-billion general fund budget, including $256 million from a program for school-age children of families moving off welfare, $133 million from mental health services for special education students and nearly $60 million from AIDS treatment and prevention programs.

Schwarzenegger did not explain his actions, but a report issued by his finance department said the savings from his vetoes would "create a prudent reserve for economic uncertainties." The state's reserve for emergencies such as battling wildfires will grow from $375 million to $1.3 billion, the report said.

Advocates for the poor said the governor's cuts were too deep, especially after a months-long standoff had produced a compromise spending plan that largely spared health and welfare programs from the ax.

"This recession is a time when people in communities need the help the most, and yet the governor is unilaterally making these cuts," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group.

The spending plan totals about $125 billion overall and passed the Legislature a record 100 days after the budget year began. It addresses a $19.1-billion deficit without new taxes and relies heavily on creative bookkeeping, as well as on cuts to public schools and state workers' paychecks.

Democratic lawmakers fought back furiously after Schwarzenegger cut about half as much — $489 million — from last year's general fund, challenging in court his authority to wield the veto pen so liberally. The courts sided with the governor, and the bitterness appeared to linger.

Schwarzenegger's vetoes "were directed at making life more difficult for California's working parents and the poorest, sickest and most elderly Californians. This is disappointing, but not surprising," Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D- Los Angeles) said in a statement.

"Now we know we have no say over it whatsoever," said Alicia Trost, spokeswoman for Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D- Sacramento). "It's just a question of how cruel he wants to be."

Other Democrats were calling Schwarzenegger a hypocrite. Earlier this week, he had held a news conference announcing his support for extending foster care to young adults up to age 21; they're currently cut off after turning 18. But on Friday, the governor vetoed nearly $80 million in child welfare services, which includes money for foster care.

"It is unfortunate that the governor just this past week portrayed himself as a child welfare advocate, and then within days he devastated foster kids with the stroke of his blue pencil," said Assemblywoman Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), the former speaker who is now running for Congress.

In addition to the large cuts to welfare and education were multimillion-dollar reductions to programs that fight AIDS and substance abuse and provide community clinics for people without health insurance.

"Those people have no place else to go," said Nancy Berlin, director of California Partnership, a statewide coalition of advocates for the poor.

The deepest cuts were to welfare and child care services.

In May, Schwarzenegger had proposed eliminating the state's main welfare program, CalWORKS. When the deal approved by lawmakers spared the program, advocates had breathed a sigh of relief. Then the vetoes came.

Berlin said the reduction in child care was particularly galling for working welfare recipients struggling to make ends meet.

"We're telling them to go out and work, and we're going to make it harder to do that by taking their child care away from them," she said. "It's one of those penny-wise, pound-foolish things."

Administration officials said many of the cuts announced Friday would be made in ways intended to minimize the effect on people who rely on state services. A $366-million cut to CalWORKS, for example, will be covered by an advance from the federal government that the state hopes it will not be required to pay back, said Ana Matosantos, Schwarzenegger's finance director.

An ugly, temporary answer to California's intractable budget problems

With few services left to cut, little left to tax and almost no political will or legislative experience to move past partisan bickering, the state budget was bound to be a disappointment.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger discusses the budget at a news conference Friday morning, after legislators approved the state's spending plan in an overnight session. (Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press / October 7, 2010)

By Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times

October 10, 2010

Reporting from Sacramento —

It was another prolonged Sacramento production, full of bickering, posturing and inaction that led to the latest state budget in modern history and provided a convenient target for the gubernatorial candidates, who say things would be different if they were in charge.

One of them will be put to the test come January, when California starts the exercise all over again. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the current crop of lawmakers are leaving much of the $19-billion deficit for either GOP nominee Meg Whitman or her Democratic rival, Jerry Brown.

The most optimistic projections show that the spending plan Schwarzenegger signed Friday will produce a shortfall of at least $10 billion — more than 11% of state spending — in the next fiscal year. Many experts predict it will be billions more. The leaders mostly papered over this year's gap, punting many tough decisions forward.

The failure of lawmakers, again, to set the state on firm financial footing highlights Sacramento's dysfunction. But it is also a reflection of a state in which the economy has been sour so long, and revenue has dwindled so much, that there are few places left to cut spending.

Broad tax increases have already been put in place, and more are not politically viable. Complicating the problem are the public's expectations of what government can accomplish with the state's shriveled tax base.

"We're going in the wrong direction fast, " said Bob Hertzberg, a former Assembly speaker who co-chairs the nonpartisan think tank California Forward. "There is a big pile of work waiting on the desk of whoever is governor next. But I don't think the outcome will be any different" from this year no matter who is elected, he said, "because the demands are so difficult."

All the problems that have haunted the budget process for years were in full force this time around, many of them more pronounced than ever. The state's volatile tax system — which economists have consistently warned is too reliant on the fortunes of the wealthy — caused revenues to continue dropping. The lack of a substantial rainy-day fund left the state without emergency reserves to blunt the blow.

Term limits ensured that relative novices had significant control over the complicated and politically charged task of negotiating a budget. The Assembly speaker and minority leader, whose most important job is to help hammer out a spending plan, had never been involved in budget talks before. And none of the legislative leaders has the kind of clout over their caucuses that their counterparts had in days past, making compromise and the necessary two-thirds vote of the Legislature much tougher to come by.

The governor's lame-duck status hurt his already limited ability to move things forward. So did his chilly relationship with his own political party, which undermined any power he might have had to pressure Republicans to work more purposefully toward a bipartisan agreement.

The public was largely cut out of the process, along with the legislative rank and file. The influence of special interests loomed large, with the biggest ones able to persuade — or bully — some lawmakers into rallying their colleagues behind untenable demands, prolonging the stalemate.

Schwarzenegger administration officials say there is a silver lining. They point to concessions made by unions that roll back some of the generous pension benefits state employees have received over the last decade. New hires will get more modest retirement benefits, limiting the contributions taxpayers must make to keep the pension fund solvent.

The budget package also places on the 2012 ballot a measure that would create spending controls to force lawmakers to build a bigger rainy-day fund.

But other budgeting measures, pushed by good-government groups seeking to bring some fiscal stability to California, stalled in the Legislature, beaten back by corporate interests and unions anxious that they could lose influence if the system were too radically changed.

As for the deficit, some say this just wasn't the year to wipe it out. Government services have already been sliced by several rounds of brutal reductions. With revenue continuing to plunge, they say, there's a point at which delaying a deficit solution does less harm to the economy than confronting it.

"In some ways, this is a reasonable ending point," said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a think tank that focuses on how the budget affects low-income residents.

As the sour economy has limited lawmakers' will to take bold action, the public is increasingly confused about what their taxes are paying for and what sacrifices would help bring the state into the black.

In a survey of 1,000 Californians conducted in June by the Pew Center on the States and the Public Policy Institute of California, half of respondents believed state spending could be cut 20% or more with no impact on services. The report points out that the state would have to eliminate the equivalent of its entire prison system, all welfare programs and all transportation spending to save that much.

The authors went to Mike Genest, Schwarzenegger's former budget director, for some perspective.

"Reality hasn't caught up with the voting public," Genest told them. "Politicians have made it sound like there are other alternatives, like we can simply get rid of fraud, waste and abuse and [have] a spending freeze and … have the same kind of government we've always had. … That's just not true."

Susan Urahn, a managing director at the Pew Center, says California's incoming governor, whoever it is, should be under no illusions.

"There will likely be a fairly short honeymoon," she said. "The problems are so significant."

Friday, October 8, 2010

California Governor Slices Nearly $1B With Line-Item Veto

Governor Slices Nearly $1B With Line-Item Veto

Schwarzenegger Signs California's 100-Days-Late Budget

POSTED: 6:20 pm PDT October 8, 2010
UPDATED: 7:00 pm PDT October 8, 2010

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California's 100-days-late budget Friday evening, but not before making nearly $1 billion worth of changes.The governor's staff said the budget was signed at about 5:30 p.m.Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto to cut $960 million. Among the biggest cuts:

$366 million from CalWorks, also known as welfare to work; administration officials said they hope to make up the cut with an advance from the federal government.
$256 million from child care subsidies, affecting families of about 55,000 children statewide.
$133 million from mental health services for about 30,000 special education students.

The budget is so tenuous that the next governor already is expected to face a multibillion dollar shortfall by the time he or she is sworn in this January.According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, two-thirds of the steps taken to bridge the $19 billion deficit are based on one-time or temporary money, some of which may never materialize.The budget for the current fiscal year has no tax increases but relies on a combination of cuts, funding shifts and assumptions about money the state hopes to receive.

TANF ECF Expires and 240,000 People Could Lose Their Jobs Today

Link to .pdf file immediately below:

This publication, The Welfare Rules Databook, provides tables containing key Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) policies for each state as of July 2008, as well as longitudinal tables describing various state policies for select years between 1996 and 2008. The tables are based on the information in the Welfare Rules Database (WRD), a publicly available, online database originally developed under the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism project.

By Mikhail Zinshteyn

September 30th, 2010

Illustration of unemployed man holding a pink slip

SOURCE: istockphoto

Monday, September 13, 2010

GOP spokesman - Senate GOP to oppose Obama tax plan

GOP spokesman: Senate GOP to oppose Obama tax plan

Published - Sep 13 2010 11:23AM EST

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans will oppose any effort to renew soon-to-expire Bush administration tax cuts if upper income taxpayers are excluded from the reductions.
A spokesman for Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that every Senate Republican has pledged to oppose President Barack Obama's tax-cutting plan. Obama would renew the tax cuts for most people, but let the top income tax rate rise back to almost 40 percent on family or small business income over $250,000.
McConnell has said a bill extending the tax cuts for only low- and middle-income earners cannot pass the Senate. Forty-one senators can block a bill with a filibuster, but McConnell spokesman Don Stewart declined to say whether all 41 Republicans would support a filibuster.
At issue is a year-end deadline to renew a variety of tax cuts enacted in 2001 _ when the federal government was running a surplus.
On Sunday, House GOP Leader John Boehner said he would support renewing tax cuts for the middle class but not the wealthy if that was his only choice.
Democrats are worried that November elections could hand the GOP control of the House and perhaps the Senate. The White House and its Democratic allies hope to use the tax-cut fight to cast themselves as defenders of the middle class and Republicans as a party eager to revive the days of the still unpopular former President George W. Bush.
"We're going to take the next 50-some days to convince the public that's exactly what the Republicans would do _ back to the Bush policies," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Gibbs said on NBC's "Today" show.
Gibbs said the middle class should not be used as a political football by Republicans maneuvering to give tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers, who he said don't need the reductions. Republicans say paring taxes for the wealthy would encourage them and the businesses they operate to create jobs.
Congressional analysts say renewing the tax cuts for everyone would cost the government $4 trillion over the next decade. With polls showing a broad public anger over spiraling federal deficits, Obama wants to exclude individuals earning over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 _ who account for $700 billion of that total.
"That's a debate we're happy to have," McConnell told the Washington Post. "That's the kind of debate that unifies my caucus."
Democrats aren't unified behind Obama and their House and Senate leaders. Several Senate Democrats say they would like all of the Bush tax cuts to be extended for another year or two as the economy slowly recovers from the recession.
"I don't think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through," Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said Monday. "The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be. And that means I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday also called on Congress to move quickly to extend the tax cuts.
Geithner and the administration have tried to make the case that conditions would have been worse without Obama's economic policies, including the $814 billion stimulus package. Geithner said that a return to Republican policies would put the economic recovery in jeopardy.
"We can't afford to go back to the policies of the past decade when we passed large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans without paying for them and saw little impact on job creation and years of stagnation in middle class wages," he said.
Republicans say the level of spending undertaken by the Obama administration has done little to boost the economy. Instead, it has increased the deficit to unsustainable levels, they say.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Under Bush, the Poor Get Poorer -September 26, 2003- By Jackson Thoreau

Under Bush, the Poor Get Poorer
September 26, 2003
By Jackson Thoreau

I admit I used to watch Frazier and sometimes even enjoy it, although I found most characters, except Frazier's dad, a bit pompous for my tastes. But after Kelsey Grammer's recent comments on Fox's Hannity & Colmes, those days are over.
Grammer, a Republican who has contributed to the likes of Arnold "The Groper" Schwarzenegger, said he would like to run for political office some day, such as the U.S. Senate. It always amazes me that these Hollywood actors think that a career of reading lines, kissing butts, and pretending they're someone they're not qualifies them for public office. Come to think of it, maybe it does these days.
Anyways, it wasn't so much Grammer's desire to join a growing group of Republican actor-politicians that got me. It was this comment: "I would like to rid the country of the idea that it's the rich against the poor. It never has been."
What country - or planet - has Grammer been living on? With that comment, he shows himself to be another ill-informed, stick-your-head-in-the-sand Republican who doesn't know much about the history of the United States, how it is set up, and how it operates. For a primer, read Howard Zinn's excellent A People's History of the United States. Or if you don't like progressive writers, read The Politics of Rich and Poor, a great book by conservative Kevin Phillips (see, I do read and recommend works by a few conservatives).
If you just want to read a shorter report, try the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' recent news release showing how the gap between the rich and poor in this country is now wider than it was in 1929 - right before the Great Depression.
Then, see if you think Grammer is still right. For further proof that wealthy Americans are getting richer while the poor multiply, watch for a report by the Census Bureau on Sept. 26 that will show the poverty rate and income gap rising. A preliminary survey by the Republican-led federal bureau reported earlier this month that some 1.4 million more Americans fell into poverty last year. About 12.4 percent of all Americans - almost 35 million people - live under the federal poverty rate, which was up from 11.7 percent in 2001.
Under President Clinton, the U.S. poverty rate dropped from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.3 percent in 2000, close to the record low of 11.1 set in 1973. In the initial year of the Bush regime, the poverty rate climbed for the first time in eight years. With tax cuts for the wealthy and cruel budget cuts for social safety net programs, some believe the poverty rate for 2002 is really closer to the Bush I regime figure, that the Republicans are playing with figures and that the bureau's estimates fall far short of reality.
Some 12.2 million children - or 17 percent - lived in poverty last year. Many people in the U.S. love to beat their chests and call their country the best in the world, but the fact is that the child poverty rate in their nation is among the highest of major industrialized countries. I don't know about you, but that's not a fact of which this American is proud.
Jay Shaft, editor of the Coalition For Free Thought In Media, wrote in an excellent article earlier this year that homelessness and poverty in the U.S. has grown by more than 35 percent since the end of 2000. Cities like Phoenix, Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago reported increases of around 50 percent between January 2001 and July 2003. Homeless shelters are overcrowded; in 2002, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported that 30 percent of all requests for shelter went unmet.
Those trends particularly increased in the first six months of 2003, as Bush's cruel budget cuts and tax increases for the poor took greater effect, Shaft wrote. Some 60 percent of new homeless cases targeted single mothers with children in 2003.
The lack of affordable housing leads the list of causes, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. The Ford administration requested more than 400,000 Section 8 vouchers to help poor families obtain housing in 1976. The Bush regime's 2003 budget request was for 34,000, despite a growth in poverty and homelessness since the 1970s.
Other causes are the continued onslaught of corporate layoffs, which have slowed only slightly this year over the torrid pace of 2001 and 2002, and the decline in value of the minimum wage, which has fallen by 25 percent since 1975. Workers with families who make the minimum wage just cannot afford the rising costs of housing, food, medical care and other necessities. More families seek governmental assistance that is dwindling.
At the same time, well-paying jobs are declining in favor of service jobs that often pay no health insurance and other benefits. Some 46 percent of the jobs with the most growth since 1994 paid less than $16,000 a year, hardly a livable wage, according to the homeless coalition.
For another look at our economic trends, see Forbes magazine's annual list of the fastest-growing companies released this month. The top spot is by a firm that produces airport security devices. The list is dominated by oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical firms, and other businesses friendly to Bush. More companies are outsourcing jobs to contractors who get no benefits. The number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow, and what is Bush and other Republican leaders doing about that? Nothing. Not a damn thing.
Another indication of Bush's inability to help the poor is that the number of Americans suffering from hunger rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soup kitchens and similar places report huge increases in needs.
Following years of decline, participation in the federal food stamp program substantially rose in 2001 and 2002. In December 2002, some 20.5 million people received food stamps, an increase of 3.6 million people from July 2000.
To make things worse for the homeless, a growing number of cities are criminalizing their very existence. Almost 70 percent of cities surveyed by the National Coalition for the Homeless passed at least one new law targeting homeless people since January 2002, according to an August 2003 coalition report.
"Instead of the compassionate responses that communities have used to save lives in the past two decades, the common response to homelessness [these days] is to criminalize the victims through laws and ordinances that make illegal life-sustaining activities that people experiencing homelessness are forced to do in public," said Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless and a former homeless victim himself.
The coalition found the top five meanest cities to the homeless were Las Vegas, San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. California and Florida were the meanest states. The top 20 list of cities included some surprises, such as those with progressive images like Austin, Tx., Boulder, Colo., and Santa Cruz, Calif. Dallas was not on that list, although I think it should have been since the city has implemented draconian measures against the homeless like bulldozing their makeshift homes.
In its 2003 report on cities' cruel crackdowns on the homeless, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty cited these five cities or counties as being particularly harsh:
• Albuquerque, N.M., where police arrested and beat homeless teens standing in a parking lot in the morning waiting for a program for homeless teens to open. In addition, police regularly confiscated homeless persons' property.
• New Orleans, La., where homeless persons were arrested for standing on public sidewalks and waiting for paychecks.
• New York City, where homeless people were forced by police to move from church steps even though a court order in the case, 5th Avenue Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, gave them that right.
• Orlando, Fla., where new laws prohibited sitting or lying on sidewalks downtown, but police reportedly allowed almost everyone else but the homeless to do so.
• Palm Beach County, Fla., ground zero for Republicans stealing the 2000 presidential election, where a church housing the homeless was fined more than $27,000 for alleged zoning violations even after the church agreed to stop housing people in exchange for elimination of the fine.
"Punishing poverty is no way to end homelessness," said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. "The real solution is to ensure decent, affordable housing with good-paying jobs for all." That is a pipe dream while Bush is in office.
The center also commended Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Miami, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., for implementing more positive solutions, such as opening centers that provide comprehensive services to the homeless. While some cities are taking positive steps, the Bush administration sure is not. Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget proposed zero new resources to meet the needs of the growing homeless population.
If the U.S. spent just $18 billion - which is what America spends in three months to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan - the country could wipe out hunger and homelessness completely for ten years, Shaft wrote. If the US took just 25 percent of its annual military budget, which is expected to top $450 billion for fiscal year 2004, the largest by far (Russia is a distant second at $60 billion, according to the non-partisan Center for Defense Information), that would go a long way towards wiping out hunger and homelessness around the world. "Just 10 percent of our military budget spent yearly on America could give every high school graduate a college education for four years," Shaft wrote.
"It seems like it is not a priority to protect our children from starvation and living on the streets," Shaft wrote. "Our education system is crumbling and the school breakfast and lunch programs are being slashed mercilessly... If this crisis continues, we are in danger of actually having worse hunger and homelessness than some third world countries. The military expansion and occupation must stop so that we can salvage our future before it is too late to stop the landslide of poor and starving."
These harsh trends of the poor multiplying and getting poorer, while the rich get richer, are exactly what many of us knew would happen under Bush-Cheney. It's happening faster than many predicted.
Did you see Fox's "conversation" between Republican butt-kisser Brit Hume and Bush on Sept. 22? That was about as much a "conversation" as any of Bush's staged press conferences, as Bush continually looked off-camera for the cue cards. I thought I was watching actors playing Bush and Hume in a Saturday Night Live skit.
Anyways, Bush again blamed a "recession I inherited" from Clinton and the terrorist acts of Sept. 11, 2001, for trends like the number of Americans living in poverty rising to about 35 million in 2002, some 3.5 million more than the level in 2000. Under Clinton, the poor dropped by about 7 million people, a better record than any other president since LBJ saw the ranks of the impoverished decline by some 12 million people.
Under Bush I, the poor increased by 6 million, the most of any modern-day president, but Bush II should overtake his father in 2004. Under Carter, the impoverished also increased, while the ranks went down under Nixon and Ford and stayed about the same under Reagan.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, you will hear a lot of Republicans blame Clinton and Democrats for the poor economy and try to divert your attention with phony economic growth numbers. But ask people around you: Are you better off now than you were in 2000? Do you feel more like making major purchases, even if interest rates are kept artificially low to mask economic problems and help Republicans stay in office? Here's one trend that brings our economic malaise under Bush home to me: 67 percent of the men in my 1995 wedding party have been laid off in the last two years and are earning substantially less than they made in 2000.
There are a lot of reasons, but I blame Bush-Cheney for much of that trend. The buck stops there. Bush and Republicans always talk the talk about taking responsibility. They should try walking the walk. Take some responsibility for this. Stop blaming Clinton, who has been out of office for almost three years. Remember Bush's tax cuts for the super wealthy and funding cuts for programs that help poor and middle-income people? Citizens for Tax Justice says the plan worked out in 2003 will give more than half of the cuts to the wealthiest 5 percent, while the poorest 60 percent will only get 8 percent.
The wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers in the U.S., who make at least $373,000, already own about 34 percent of the wealth - more than the bottom 90 percent! - according to the non-partisan U.S. Federal Reserve Board. Organizations like the Cato Institute and Citizens for Tax Justice put the top 1 percent's wealth percentage higher, at closer to 40 percent. No other industrial country comes close to matching this imbalance between the very rich and the rest of us. Even in class-conscious England, with its imperial Queen and all, the wealthiest 1 percent own closer to 20 percent.
Furthermore, these very wealthy American families only pay about 20 percent of the taxes, not 34 to 40 percent. Their actual rate is 39 percent, but they get that drastically reduced through tax credits and creative, Enron-like, accounting schemes.
In 2001, this 1 percent received an average tax cut from the Bush administration of $53,123; meanwhile, 60 percent of American families only got a cut of $347, on average, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. The poorest 20 percent of American families received virtually nothing. This is not proportionate, and it's not "liberty and justice for all," in my book.
You still think that it "never has been" about the rich against the poor in this country, Kelsey? How do you think some people get so rich and many more stay poor? I challenge anyone to name one thing Bush has done to help a person climb out of poverty. All he has done is help his rich-buddy campaign contributors get filthy, bloody richer.
Bush doesn't really care about poor people, or even middle-income people, except to gain their votes. When are more people going to learn that? And he's worse than most Republicans who suck up to the wealthy because Bush tries to play up his Christian image more than most. Again, unlike Christ, who Bush is supposed to try to follow, Bush does nothing to help the poor.
He's just a big, stinking hypocrite, and I really get mad every time I see him posing with some poor kid in a Big Brothers center - whose funding he cuts - as a cynical attempt to gain some more votes. Bush just makes fools of people. And it's maddening as hell that more people don't see it, or if they do, don't speak out against it.
As the 2004 elections approach, we have to hammer people with these wealth trends. Under Bush, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the poverty rate is rising, and household income is falling for all but the wealthiest Americans. Keep repeating that to whomever you come across.

Jackson Thoreau is an American writer and co-author of We Will Not Get Over It: Restoring a Legitimate White House. The updated, 120,000-word electronic book can be downloaded from his website. (Citizens for Legitimate Government has the earlier version.) He can be contacted at jacksonthor@yahoo.com.