Saturday, November 19, 2011
Polls show overwhelming support (70%) of the ideas behind the OWS movement. Inequality in wealth distribution, inequality in justice, inequality in voting rights, and inequality of women's rights. Just what part of "Equal Rights for All", didn't they understand?
The people are waking up, and are showing their courage, dedication, and ongoing support.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Cut fuel consumption in the passenger car fleet? Simple. Tax on all cars, regardless of age, as follows: Tax = $100 X (Weight/3000#) ^ 2.
A 3,000* car pays $100, 6,000# car pays $400, and a 9,000 # car pays $900.
Need a harder press on the brake?
Tax on all cars, regardless of age, as follows: Tax = ($100 X (Weight/3000#) ^ 2.5).
Now a 3,000 # car pays the same $100. But! the 6,000# car pays just under $600; the 9,000# vehicle pays just under $1,600.
Why go after the weight? Because the weight is a major factor in fuel consumption and downsizing the fleet may have less of an impact on lower income households.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
-- Ron Paul
Pure and very simple hog-wash. Might taxes go up? Sure. Will it be to finance the deficit? Nope.
Taxes may go up to drain excess money out of the economy to avoid inflation but taxes don't finance anything. The government doesn't run to a tin box when it needs money and worry if the box is empty. It sounds strange but the government neither has nor doesn't have money. It is self financing and needs to tax to balance the economy but not to collect money. There is no "place" for it to store collected money.
Let's see, oh, that old saw about a 90% marginal rate that suggests that the very rich might be better off actually investing in company expansion to produce more and employ more. How funny.
And the silly idea of keeping taxes very low on the working people to improve their quality of life and to encourage an increase in demand for goods and services. Now that's a real giggle.
How about that silliness of helping the elderly and the infirm survive in a decent environment. Really off the wall.
Oh, and spending money on projects to improve the environment and infrastructure. Perhaps give employment to those that are searching for work but can't find it. Completely beyond the pale of rational, modern thought.
Regulate financial institutions? Really ridiculous. We must trust the operators to make good decisions. To consider reimposing bank regulations? So quaint.
The fact that these worked in the 1930s should not influence anyone today. We need to keep pouring money into the corporate coffers; eventually that will bring the economy around.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The country must face "hard time"; all the while feeding the men behind the curtain huge sums of money.
Does the country owe money to bond holders? Yes. Is that debt payable in anything but our own currency? NO!!!
Is there any fundamental economic principle forcing default on our bond payments? None at all. (Actually, the 14th Amendment makes laws limiting such just payments unconstitutional.)
The government buys and sells bonds as a way of controlling interest rates AND THAT'S ALL!! It doesn't need the money.
The Federal Reserve Governors set a target interest rate. The Fed then buys (to raise interest rates) or sells (guess why) bonds on the open market to move toward that target.
(This is a bit arcane but bear with me.) Deficit spending also tends to raise interest rates so the Fed has to sell bonds to balance that spending.
Deficit spending can also trigger inflation. I don't think that is a problem now. Why? Look at the unemployment numbers. Unfortunately, the only thing we don't control is fuel prices and that can pose a problem. However, every thing else in our economy is subject to rational control.
"Rational control", ahhh, a consummation devoutly to be wished. Cut spending we hear, just when the economy needs an influx of money. Raise taxes, just when the economy needs people to spend on goods and services to raise the demand. Default on paying the just returns on our bonds. I can only think of checking gasoline level with a match.
Either the politicians are that badly informed or they hope to keep us that way. Think about it and, perhaps, we can hold their feet to the fire and get some governance that makes sense.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The following is reprint from Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest). The original, at least in my browser, is dark print on a dark background and I could not read it.
With apologizes to Salon:
Monday, Jun 27, 2011 20:25 ET
Eric Cantor's glaring conflict of interest
He's the GOP's chief debt ceiling negotiator. He's also invested in a fund that will skyrocket if there's a default
By Jonathan Easley
Eric Cantor's glaring conflict of interest
AP/J. Scott Applewhite
When Eric Cantor shut down debt ceiling negotiations last week, it did more than just rekindle fears that the U.S. government might soon default on its debt obligations -- it also brought him closer to reaping a small financial windfall from his investment in a mutual fund whose performance is directly affected by debt ceiling brinkmanship.
Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively "shorts" long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)
According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor's office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.
"If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, investors would start fleeing U.S. Treasuries," said Matt Koppenheffer, who writes for the investment website the Motley Fool. "Yields would rise, prices would fall, and the Proshares ETF should do very well. It would spike."
The fund hasn't significantly spiked yet because many investors believe Congress will eventually raise the debt ceiling. However, since Cantor abruptly called off debt ceiling negotiations last Thursday, the fund is up 3.3 percent. Even if an agreement is ultimately reached before Aug. 2, the fund could continue to benefit between now and then from the uncertainty. (One tactic some speculators are using is to "trade the debt ceiling debate" -- that is, to place short-term bets on prices as they fluctuate with the news out of Washington.)
Salon's Andrew Leonard calls the debt ceiling negotiations "Washington’s titanic game of chicken," and the longer the game goes on, the more skittish the bond markets will become.
"Cantor's involvement in the fund and negotiations is not ideal," Koppenheffer said. "I don’t think someone negotiating the debt ceiling should be invested in this kind of an ultra-short. We can only guess how much he understands what’s in his portfolio, but you’d think a politician would know better. It looks pretty bad."
Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring noted that U.S. Treasury bonds make up a large portion of the congressman’s pension, and said investment in ProShares ETF serves to balance that investment and to diversify his portfolio. Disclosure forms indicate that Cantor has considerable personal assets, including real estate in Virginia worth up to $1 million, and a number of six- and seven-figure loans to private entities and limited liability companies. So his investment in ProShares ETF represents only a small portion of his overall portfolio -- but that share could grow a little larger just over a month from now.
Jonathan Easley is an editorial fellow at Salon. Follow him on Twitter @joneasley. More: Jonathan Easley
About War Room
War Room is our political news and commentary blog, with coverage and commentary throughout the day from Alex Pareene and original reporting and analysis from Justin Elliott, Steve Kornacki and the rest of Salon's news team.
For additional comments see:
Cantor, debt ceiling, Republican, conflict of interest,
Friday, June 17, 2011
living cookie cutter lives
raising cookie cutter children
with their cookie cutter wives
driving cookie cutter SUVs
to cookie cutter schools
on to cookie cutter jobs
with their cookie cutter rules
on a cookie cutter schedule
for their cookie cutter day
while their cookie cutter kids
engage in cookie cutter play
in their cookie cutter suburbs
with their cookie cutter lawns
'til their cookie cutter nights
end in cookie cutter yawns
Sunday, June 12, 2011
The country went off the gold standard in 1971!!!! And what is strange is everyone acts as if we are still on that standard. The mind set, certainly in the general population, remains fixed on the idea that a federal budget and home budget work the same way.
They do not. In fact many of the concepts that we have for home, corporate, or state budgets either don't apply or are reversed for a government running on a fiat currency.
For example: Your budget requires obtaining something of value to trade for products or services you want. You need to get cash to spend. The government, on the other hand, needs to create something of value to provide for an economy and to control the economy. That control is supposed to be for the overall benefit of the citizens for whom the government (presumably) works. The government must create a currency and, somehow, give that currency value. If the government has the power to tax and define the currency that tax must be paid in, it must use that power to give its currency value. In fact that is the only way the government has to give value to its currency.
This, of course, leads to the first difference in your budget and the government's; you must earn, borrow, or somehow acquire money to pay your taxes. But the government must spend money (and run a deficit) in order for there to be money to tax. But note well!!! The government does not have to borrow any money; not a farthing, nothing. The government neither has nor doesn't have money.
What about the tax money it gets? An entry is made that you paid your taxes - and that's it. It doesn't go into a tin box somewhere, it simply disappears. The government doesn't require any taxes to pay for a government purchase of goods or services. It doesn't even have to bother printing currency most of the time, it simply makes entries in its score card, its spread sheet.
If there is too much money and too little goods and services, i.e. more demand that supply, then raising the taxes will drain the excess and lower the demand. The government can control where growth is simply by where it spends (where we tell it to?) and what it taxes. Tax automobiles by weight, say 10 cents a pound per year. No complicated fuel consumption rules. Just that alone will drop fuel consumption in this country dramatically. Tax income above, say $300,000, at 90% and down $200,000 at 10%. How much of the population (and industry) would benefit?
There is a lot of fine structure that is built from this concept, but the sad thing is that a grasp of just this simple model is all the is really necessary to conclude that the public is being badly served. Whether it is through ignorance or chicanery is hard to tell, but if the general public should ever figure this out and realize that the economy can easily be configured to provide a descent life for everyone but has been structured to enrich a few on the backs of the general population, there should be hell to pay.
Notice, I did suggest the government didn't need to borrow anything. A little secret (shhhhh: It never has to). Why it does will be discussed during news at eleven. (I mean in another blog.) It makes sense but not to acquire money.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
how to stop facebook from automatically tagging you in photos
While it's pretty annoying that Facebook turned this on without telling us, it's pretty easy to turn off:--------------
Head your Privacy Settings and click on Customize Settings.
Scroll down to the "Suggest Photos of Me to Friends" setting and hit "Edit Settings".
In the drop-down on the right, hit "Disable".
Facebook Hires Two Ex-Bush Staffers
The two ex-Bush staffers that have signed on with Facebook are Joel Kaplan, formerly Bush’s deputy chief of staff, and Myriah Jordan, who had worked in Bush’s Office of the Chief of Staff and recently served as Republic Senator Richard Burr’s general counsel.....
Kaplan, who is to head Facebook’s D.C. office, will oversee Facebook’s public policy efforts, as well as the company’s “interactions with federal and state policymakers,” according to Facebook. Jordan will work on congressional relations.
Facebook hires GOP Insider
Former digital strategist at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Katie Harbath will join the firm's small Washington, D.C.-based team as associate manager, policy, just in time for kick-off of the 2012 GOP primary campaign season....
...... Harbath, who starts her work with Facebook February 28, served as e-campaign director for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, and also handled the GOP.com site for the Republican National Committee during the 2004 election season. In addition, she worked in the online services division at DCI Group, a Republican public affairs firm.
... Recently, some Republican digital consultants have complained that a change to Facebook's ad serving system is damaging their ad campaigns on the site.
Monday, June 6, 2011
We (The US) operate in a "Fiat" money system. The "Gold Standard" was abandoned in 1971, forty years ago but public and government opinion operates as if the Gold Standard was still in place..
There are two categories of government money: Commodity and Fiat.
Commodity money is backed by - a commodity: Rice, Gold, Sea Shells, Oil, whatever. Gold is nice because it doesn't rust, rot, or evaporate and it's pretty.
In a commodity based system there are three interesting facts:
1. The government can go broke.
2. The government must tax or borrow to spend. And
3. The government has limited control over the value of its own currency.
Fiat money Is backed by - pretty much nothing. ( I know - Full Faith etc. Not really worth anything.) But the facts about Fiat money are quite interesting.
1. The government CANNOT GO BROKE. (that should be etched across every politicians head.)
2. The government must spend in order to tax. And
3. The government has almost complete control over the value of its money.
The government must spend before it can tax???? There must be deficit spending???? Gasp!!!
Think about it. The government levies a tax on - something - and says it can only be paid in the currency it approves. But where does that currency come from and how do you get any? It is obvious that the government must hand out the money to people BEFORE it can collect taxes. It can build roads, hire an army, pay doctors to help the sick, hire people to keep score (keep the spread sheet). You might farm food for the road builders (or the army) and sell it for - that currency you need to pay taxes (and, perhaps buy a TV).
Thus what really gives the currency value (forget about Full Faith etc.) was the fact that it is the only thing you could pay your taxes in.
So, taxes are useful to give the currency value. But it has another function that is equally important: Taxes (and borrowing) serve to drain excess currency out of the market.
What's with that?
Suppose the government buys a lot of stuff. Suppose everyone is fully employed and buys a lot of stuff. What? There isn't enough stuff to go around? Prices are going up? There is INFLATION???
What to do? Oh! Tax and borrow and drain excess money (and buying power) out of the market. Ease up on the gas pedal (deficit spending) and touch the brake (taxes and borrowing).
Oh dear, employment is falling and facilities are standing idle!!
What to do? How about spending more on, say, the infrastructure, giving grants to states and towns to upgrade their facilities. Make sure everyone has health care. Provide support for local schools. Subsidize fuel efficient cars and research into renewable energy. Oh! And cut taxes on middle and lower income workers; you know, the ones that will actually spend money in the market place.
Remember this if nothing else: In a fiat monetary system and there are no debts in any other currency or commodity, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GO BROKE!!! Never! Never!
General Eisenhower’s Message Sent Just Prior to the Invasion:
Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon a great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened, he will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man to man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to victory!
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!
Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
-- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The Boston Globe
Support for state health law rises
By Kay Lazar
Globe Staff / June 5, 2011
The poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe found that 63 percent of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, up 10 percentage points in the past two years. Just 21 percent said they were against the law.
Yet opposition has grown to one of its central elements — the requirement that people who can afford insurance buy it or face a fine. A similar provision in the national health care overhaul passed last year has been the subject of a contentious legal fight.
Forty-four percent said they oppose the mandate in the Massachusetts law, compared with 35 percent who opposed it in a 2008 poll. Still, the mandate retains the support of a narrow 51 percent majority of residents.
Percolating throughout the findings is a growing anxiety about health care costs, which are higher in Massachusetts than in the nation as a whole.
Residents are split on whether Massachusetts can afford to continue with the law as it stands, and 30 percent said the law is hurting the cost of their care, up from 22 percent in 2009. Yet when asked about the law’s role in boosting health costs in Massachusetts, 72 percent said rising costs were mainly because of factors other than the law.
The majority’s perception — which aligns with health policy specialists’ view that overall medical inflation is driving up costs in Massachusetts — may help explain the continued strong support for the law.
Support for the law may have increased along with the economy — it’s now about the same as it was before the recession — and because “it’s established. It’s running. It hasn’t caused problems for people.’’
The poll results show that residents with incomes below $30,000 — the bracket that would probably make them eligible for state-subsidized care — were the most likely to say the law is helping to control the cost of their care.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Click for Full Size
This graph makes it quite apparent who spent the money, but the GOP's job is to distract and obfuscate. When facing facts is too much like reality, it's all they got.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
When you remove the human element, dehumanize the reaction to pain and death from war, it becomes just a game. A very deadly one, and this is where we find ourselves today. GPS tracking, remote controlled drones, and now VADER....
Ph.D. Octopus, War and Dehumanization
Wiz,April 8, 2010, in reference to explicit videos released by WikiLeaks:
...."the comment by Julian Assange, who released the videos, was most pertinent: “’Their desire was simply to kill,’ he said. “Their desire was to get high scores on that computer game.’” And that is exactly what this video felt like. A video game. This was more true than, perhaps Assange even realized. The Army has long recruited and trained soldiers using video games, and it is of course likely that the soldiers themselves, like most of us, have played role-player type video games in which shooting at random digital images.
Its dehumanization by digitalization, by technological separation. Combined with a pretty extensive de facto policy of dehumanization by traditional forms of racism, nationalism, and, xenophobia, it creates a toxic mix. The blame here, obviously, goes high up. Put any person through elaborate systems, both technological and environmental, designed to dehumanize the enemy and this is what you’ll get."....
Video and more
Your information is being gathered, analyzed, categorized, processed and shared.
UPDATE - and JUST IN TIME
Pentagon Looks to Double Its Unmanned Air Force
..."The congressionally mandated Aircraft Procurement Plan 2012-2041 is, of course, filled with conjecture. Any number of factors — fiscal, strategic, industrial or technological — could change unexpectedly, sending ripples through the Pentagon’s carefully-laid plans, currently projected to cost around $25 billion per year. ...
....the military believes it can make do for the next three decades with air fleets roughly the same size as today’s — with just one big exception. The robot air force will double in just the next nine years."...
One Brain, Hundreds of Eyes: Darpa Plots Manhunt Master Controller
..."The Pentagon’s bleeding-edge research shop, Darpa, announced this week that it awarded a $14 million contract to defense contractor SAIC to build Insight, its system-of-systems effort to mashup snooping sensors that’ll find human prey on the battlefield. ...
...(given the wonderful acronym, “Vader”)..."
..."A system this complex, you can’t just dump in Iraq or Afghanistan. So Darpa is looking to set up an “incubator” — a sort of virtual world, where all these sensors and sensor-integrators can be tested out first. The pixelized place will pit the system against a battery of simulated sensor data and information collected from real world threats to see how it performs at tracking threats. Once it’s finished in the virtual world, it’s moves to meatspace testing at the Army’s National Training Center in Ft. Irwin, California. Only then would it go to an honest-to-God war zone."
I've read that the military has a large presence in Second Life, and Linden Labs sold license and hardware to the Navy in August of 2010.
Second Life Wiki -Military_Lands
From the July/2008 Dark Government Blog
IARPA Trolls Online Gaming
...."No word on what world that will be in, but we already know that the CIA has a presence in Second Life and that IARPA has investigated Linden Lab’s world as well. (”U.S. Project Reynard Mines Data Looking for Virtual Spies,” Virtual Worlds News, February 25, 2008)
One can only wonder what IARPA will do once “baseline behaviors” are mapped! But apparently there’s no need to fret since “the government understands that ‘applications of results from these research projects may ultimately have implications for privacy and civil liberties,’ so ‘IARPA is also investing in projects that develop privacy protecting technologies,’” Secrecy News reports.
We bet they are! But as Strobel points out, “IARPA’s ancestry is a wee bit interesting”:
In the beginning,...."
Read the whole article
Someone was very clever in naming this project, don't you think?
from the WIKI:
..."Reynard, an anthropomorphic red fox and trickster figure."...
And from Wired, February/2008
U.S. Spies Want to Find Terrorists in World of Warcraft
By Ryan Singel, Author - February 22, 2008
"Be careful who you frag. Having eliminated all terrorism in the real world, the U.S. intelligence community is working to develop software that will detect violent extremists infiltrating World of Warcraft and other massive multiplayer games, according to a data-mining report from the Director of National Intelligence.
The Reynard project will begin by profiling online gaming behavior, then potentially move on to its ultimate goal of "automatically detecting suspicious behavior and actions in the virtual world."....
Watch - StarTrek, A Taste of Armageddon
Monday, May 23, 2011
Remember Rudy Giuliani Testified to the 9/11 Commission about the FEMA exercise in NYC on 9/11.
History Commons Rudy Giuliani
Sunday, May 15, 2011
by SPROCKETandDUBS : http://bit.ly/mrmCHW
Lets see if this one stays up
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
What is The Zeitgeist Movement?
Zeitgeist Movement Explained
Started in late 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement exists as the communication and "Activist Arm" of an organization called The Venus Project. The Venus Project was started many decades ago by Social/Industrial Designer Jacque Fresco and his life's work has been to address and overcome the lack of sustainability existing currently across the world and work to incorporate new methods and values before it is too late. The basic pursuit of The Movement is to begin a transition into a new, sustainable social design called a “Resource-Based Economy”. This term was first coined by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and refers to an economic structure based exclusively on strategic resource management as the starting point for all decisions.
Zeitgeist Moveing Forward Downloads
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Boonyville: Jan 24, 2011
I found this tidbit on my scan of the news, and thought I should make note for future finger pointing.
OMG I HATE NEO-SCUM.
Governors tell feds to avoid government shutdown
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press
Salon.com, US Governors Economy
Their states on the brink of financial catastrophe, governors pleaded Saturday for the divided federal government to avoid doing anything that would hamper the tenuous economic recovery back home.
Their message to Washington: prevent a government shutdown, abstain from spending cuts that dramatically will affect states and end even preliminary discussions about allowing states to declare bankruptcy.
"We don't need a hiccup now in our recovery," she added. "We are fragile."
Also of concern to the governors was talk about allowing states to declare bankruptcy as a way of handling their growing piles of debt.
Some congressional Republicans, conservative groups, and potential GOP presidential candidates such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have floated the idea. But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., has spoken out against the idea, an indication it's not going anywhere.
"We have been clear," Gregoire said. "We don't even want the subject discussed, let alone to move it forward."
Governors are worried about the potential effect on the municipal bond market. They also said it would increase interest rates and mean higher costs to state government.
Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a Democrat, said it was "one of the most dangerous discussions we've had in a long time" and called any such proposal "the height of insanity."
Still, at least one broke ranks.
"It should be a discussion," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, joining other likely 2012 GOP contenders.
Also: Government shutdown veterans of 1995: ‘Don’t do it!'
You, too, can fight NEO-SCUM.
VOTE PROGRESSIVE, and give ONLY to Progressive Candidates!
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Neo-Libertarians are in charge, not neo-conservatives, nor anything close to actually conservatism.
Beyond Left and Right: A Spectrum of Ideological Vapidity by C. Derick Varn
"...I see progressives and even anarchists calling more on actual historical traditions than the "compassionate conservatives" do: it is often progressives who defend traditional cultures and pre-capitalist family arrangements.
In almost every way, the decentralization-oriented progressive is more conservative than the neo-Conservative is. It is also true that while progressives do have a teleological orientation politically—most are not utopians or apocalyptics anymore. Most of the left has learned something about completely utopian orientations. Many of the liberal teachers I work with are the harshest critics of the "decline of cultural standards."
Indeed, in this way, much of the center left is more conservative than real libertarians. (I say real libertarians to break them apart from mere neo-liberals). Even Ron Paul realized the revolutionary aspects of his ideas, despite his Protestant Christian orientation, and used this in his marketing of himself to the left. ..."
Dennis Kucinich Statement, kucinich.house.gov
Dennis Kucinich Statement
GOP freshmen help derail Patriot Act extension
By Scott Butterworth
Monday, January 24, 2011
by Mark on January 23, 2011
economiccollapse.net: Gingrich, Allow States To File Bankruptcy
State bankruptcy bill imminent, Gingrich says
By Lisa Lambert
WASHINGTON | Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:57pm EST
...Although Gingrich, considered responsible for the "Republican Revolution" of the 1990's, is no longer in office, he has deep ties to Congress and is frequently named as a potential presidential contender in 2012.
For months he has championed letting states file for bankruptcy in order to handle their long-term budget problems despite resistance from states and investors in the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market.
"We're faced with the danger that the states are going to try to show up and say to Washington: You have to give us money," Gingrich said. "And I think we have to have an alternative that allows us to say no."
While he declined to comment on who might introduce legislation, Gingrich said there was support in both the House and the Senate. He said lawmakers have been looking into the idea for three or four months.
Gingrich first publicly broached the idea in November, the same month the Republican party won control of the House in mid-term elections, largely on promises of reducing spending.
But the legislation will likely face an uphill battle with Democrats still in control of the Senate and the White House. ........
The World Needs More SEDER!!!
pbtrue1's blog memories
I won't say it, but you can read about it. :)
Eric Kleefeld | January 21, 2011, 5:04PM
Report: Gingrich To Base Presidential Campaign In Georgia
Talking Points Memo
Jim Galloway of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
In the last 24 hours, former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich has touched base with several prominent Republicans in his former home state, telling them that he intends to make a run for president in 2012 using Georgia as his base - and that he already has his eye on office space in Buckhead for a campaign headquarters.
Gingrich met on Thursday with [Governor] Nathan Deal, whom Gingrich endorsed during a critical phase of last year's Republican primary for governor.
Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler told Galloway that his boss's schedule for a decision has not changed: "His plans are to decide on whether to create an exploratory committee in late February, and make a decision about his candidacy in March."
The World Needs More SEDER!!!
Sam Seder Show Blog