NY GOP goes after Sen. Gillibrand on Upstate Works Act

Written by VASS - political commentary

We received an email from the NY State Republican Party today, taking on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on her efforts with the Upstate Works Act. The focus of the email is NY GOP chairman Ed Cox rebuking Sen. Gillibrand for her attack on Republican NY State Senators, but we were interested in the Upstate Works Act. What was that?

The Upstate Works Act, or S 3787, was introduced on 9/4/10. At the time it received little fanfare. In fact it was not followed at all. According to Open Congress

“Hmmmm, no news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number or title.”

The lack of attention seems warranted as the Bill itself was ignored by the entire Senate in 2010. There are no co-sponsors to the Bill. Not even NY Senator Charles Schumer bothered to co-sponsor the Bill, and it died.

What did the Bill do?

“A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the benefits available in empowerment zones and other tax-incentive areas, to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program for the award of grants to States to establish revolving loan funds for small and medium-sized manufacturers to improve energy efficiency and produce clean energy technology, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for farmers’ investments in value-added agriculture, and for other purposes.”

It sounds like a quite helpful Bill. New York State could certainly use many of the proposed benefits. Likewise, we imagine, so could several other States across the nation. But somehow it just died with a whimper.

But on November 15, 2011, Sen. Gillibrand announced a new version of the Bill.

“My Upstate Works Act rejuvenates our manufactures to make New York the clean energy capital of the world, gives working adults access to new training to prepare them for the jobs of the future, and helps our family farms get ahead. No other state can lead the way to the new economy like New York, and my upstate Jobs bill taps into New York’s full potential.”

The New Bill is S 1895, though it now has the name Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act of 2011. The title does sound better. But the question is if it is any better, or well received, than the last attempt by Sen. Gillibrand?

Take a guess.

Yes, once again the Bill was introduced on 11/16/11. As of this article, there has be exactly 0 support. It has made no motion through the Senate. It has no co-sponsors. Once again, even Senator Chuck Schumer is absent any support. Of course there was also no media coverage of the Bill.

Which brings up the point, if no one knows the Bill exists - even if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread - does it matter? If Sen. Gillibrand were to highlight this as one of the many Bills she has supported and sponsored in Congress, and is a justification for her re-election, shouldn’t she also mention that it was abandoned by the entire Senate. Is it really doing your job if Bills you create are unknown, and without support?

If the Upstate Works Act taps the full potential of New York State, as Sen. Gillibrand stated, is the lack of interest or support - even from the other NY Senator - mean that the potential of NY is meaningless? Does it mean that progress in the New York economy has no impact on the national economy?

OR,

Does the complete lack of usefulness of this Bill, in 2010 and again in 2011, mean that Sen. Gillibrand is inadequate to the responsibility of a Senator? Especially since it would appear she could not even convince Sen. Schumer of the worth of the Bill.

It is an interesting question, and we will see if Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will repond to us on why the Bill has died again.

For the record, Sen. Gillibrand has sponsored 59 Bills (ranking 4th in the Senate), of which 0 have become law. She has co-sponsored 255 Bills (6th in Senate), of which 3 were made into law. An impressive record it is not.

***Update

We have sent the following letter to Senator Gillibrand. We will provide any response VERBATIM.

Senator Gillibrand,

I would like to ask you about the Upstate Works Act that you have now sponsored twice (2010 and 2011).

In each instance the Bill has had no coverage from the media at large. It has failed to get co-sponsorship from any other member of the Senate. That includes NY Senator Charles Schumer. It has died in the Senate, going no further than introduction.

Can you please explain why the Bill gathered no steam, each time? Can you please explain why even the media paid no attention to this Bill?

Seperately, can you explain that of the 59 Bills you have sponsored, not one has become a law?

NY State budget for 2012-13

Written by VASS - political commentary

Gov. Andrew Cuomo just isn’t making friends. Today he has proposed a $132 billion state budget that cuts public pension plans - in a manner, hits millionaires, credits the middle class, and gets tough on education. It will also further alienate certain New Yorkers as over-taxed pack mules. But the key question, beyond if this will invite much needed new businesses, is will it stem the 60-year exodus from New York?

The budget proposal by Gov. Cuomo seekes to address the projected $3.5 billion budget gap that is currently projected. This is a marked decrease from the prior gap of $10 billion that Gov. Cuomo walked into office and hafd placed on his back. The latest proposal seeks to limit and maintain the deficit for New York at or below $5 billion, with the projection for 2016 being a net deficit of $3.7 billion.

The 2012-13 NYS budget proposal is seeking to control spending by $2 billion, and generate an additional $1.5 billion from tax reform. In addition it avoids a stated tax hike to attain these targets.

Key points highlighted in the proposal include:

And then there were 5

Written by VASS - political commentary

Jon Huntsman has dropped out of the race for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination. The news to be formally announced Jan 16, 2012 was released late on Sunday. Huntsman is expected to shift his support to frontrunner Mitt Romney, adding to the support and probability that Romney will win the Republican nomination.

Jon Huntsman started the 2012 Republican nomination race as a relative unknown to most of the public. He was a Governor of Utah, and the former ambassador to China. He is part of a highly successful family global business in chemicals. His credentials would have implied that he could have been a serious contender for the nomination.

But almost from the start of the debates, Huntsman lagged the huge field of Republican hopefuls. Early in 2011 Huntsman was looking at single digit polling. The response was to push for a win, or competative 2nd place, in New Hampshire. This was done at the cost of almost completely abandoning Iowa, the first Caucus.

The result in Iowa Caucus reflected the polling from the latter half of 2011, from across the country. But Huntsman spoke boldly and definitively about his chances in New Hampshire’s Primary. But once the deed was done, and the votes counted, Huntsman lagged by a huge margin. Added to this was the fact that Huntsman had missed the Arizona cut-off date to register for that vote.

Still there was initial hope that South Carolina, on Jan 21st, might hold some glimmer of rescue. The latest polling data again suggested Huntsman would receive a percentage of votes that wouldn’t cross into double digits (matching our prediction on Jan 11th of a 3 - 6% return in that race). Though that did not account for South Carolina’s largest newspaper - The State - endorsing Huntsman over their second choice Romney. But that was apparently too little too late.

The loss of Jon Huntsman now leaves 5 Republicans in the contest. Reuters, on Jan 14th, shows Mitt Romney with 21%, followed by Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum tied for second with 16% each. Newt Gingrich is in third with 12% and no mention was made of Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Rasmussen, on Jan 12th, showed Romeny with 28%, Gingrich with 21%, Rep. Paul and Santorum tied at 16%, with Perry at 6%.

Real Clear Politics shows the average of polling from Jan 11 - 15th as:

Congratulations to our Buy & Win Contest winner!

Written by M V Consulting, Inc

We wish to thank all those that visited Alchemy at World of VASS during the holiday season of 2011. We especially thank everyone that purchased an item and were entered into our Buy & Win Contest.

The entry was automatic for any purchase over $50. The prize was 5% of all the revenues of M V Consulting, Inc generated by the sales at Alchemy at World of VASS. It was just that simple.

The prize winner was determined randomly, and notified of the win on Jan 4, 2012. Payment was made on Jan 7, 2012.

Due to our strict privacy protection we cannot reveal the full name of our winner. But we can say that we congratulate

Alicia S. of Quarryville, PA

We hope that the money comes at an opportune time and will help kick-off a great start to 2012!

Looking forward, we are planning a similar bonus to shoppers looking for unique, hand-crafted, and imported gifts for Valentine’s Day, birthdays, or just because you want something special.

Don’t forget that it is your support of our political commentary, entertainment news/events, and gift shopping websites that allows us to survive. We do appreciate all the support you provide.

Again thank you all for visiting our online store.

Sincerely

Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc
info@vassconsult.com

10 Little Republicans Candidates - the 2012 nomination race in satire

Written by VASS - political commentary

Playing off the 1868 minstrel song by Septimus Winner, 10 Little Indians, we take a look at the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee candidates with some political satire. We will also make a prediction with the remaining current candidates in this format.

Ten little Republican candidates standin’ in a line,
One toddled home and then there were nine (Gov. Tim Pawlenty);

Nine little Republican candidates swingin’ at a debate,
One tumbled off and then there were eight (Gov. Gary Johnson).

One little, two little, three little, four little, five little Republicans,
Six little, seven little, eight little, nine little, ten little Republicans.

Eight little Republican candidates gayest under heav’n.
One has been asleep and then there were seven (Jon Huntsman);

Seven little Republican candidates cuttin’ up their tricks,
One was broken by his p**** and then there were six (Herman Cain).

Six little Republican candidates all alive,
One kicked the bucket and then there were five (Rep. Michelle Bachmann);

Five little Republican candidates on a cellar door,
One stumbled in and then there were four (Gov. Rick Perry).

Four little Republican candidates up on a spree,
One got fuddled over the past and then there were three (Newt Gingrich);

Three little Republican candidates out on a canoe,
One chose to be isolated and then there were two (Rep. Ron Paul).

Two little Republican candidates foolin’ with a gun [political ads],
One shot t’other (Rick Santorum) and then there was one;

One little Republican nominee livin’ all alone (Mitt Romney),
He got married to the White House and then there were none.

Iowa Caucus: A war of attrition

Written by Michael Vass

“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley” - Robert Burns poem, To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough

In 2010, depending on the month you choose, any one of 6 Republican candidates looked to be the defining leader of the Republican race for the nomination. Pundits and commentators fed on the ups and downs of the candidates like sharks with chum in the water. Ultimately all the predictions, forecasts, and probabilities went out the window as voters in Iowa did the one thing that matters - vote.

As the night has continued, the results have come in with a surprise and clear indications of the future. The race for the Republican Presidential nominee to face President Obama will be won more likely through attrition than outright victory.

The data early on suggests that some things were exactly as could be predicted by pundits:

Rep. Ron Paul made a strong showing. Anything less would have been amazing for a candidate that has spent years preparing for this 1 day. Even with that, last-minute voters shunned Paul. More to the potential for the future, Rep. Paul seems incapable of drawing beyond the isolated core of his supporters.

Mitt Romney remains a critical choice for most voters. As seen throughout 2010, Romney has maintained a status of co-leadership. His position of being the frontrunner and presumptive choice in 2012 remains intact. But, for a candidate that was so close to winning in 2008 and with such name recognition, not to mention the millions in advertising spent in Iowa, that he would not improve on his results is troubling. There is no more clear indication that Romney is not the decisive choice, just the choice most likely to win in a battle among many.

Newt Gingrich has dropped from the top tier. While he enjoyed a huge and unexpected surge in late 2010, his return to the spotlight brought attention to the past negatives of the candidate and his record. While that brings up the positives, it demands attention on the negatives as well. The unlikely candidate, remains unlikely.

Gov. Rick Perry continues to lumber on, his luster lost almost as quickly as it was gained. The many stumbles, misstatements, and questionable positions on critical issues like immigration reflect his performance in Iowa.

The big surprise of course is Rick Santorum. He was long-ago placed in the same category as Jon Huntsman, and Gov Tim Pawlenty. Most pundits were amazed that he remained in the nomination race. For those that follow the half-year of debates and speeches that culminate with the Iowa and other Caucuses, Santorum was barely worth mentioning - and often wasn’t.

Santorum for his part was undaunted. He used the time to present his message to the people of Iowa. He effectively reached the masses with little cash, and almost no media attention. He took advantage of the fact that unlike all his peers, his position in polls left him unworthy of attack ads or highlights of the negatives of his time in Congress. That will end first thing in the morning tomorrow, even as he capitalizes on the fact that most Americans don’t pay attention until the Caucuses start.

Thus there is a race. In South Carolina it will be brutal. In New Hampshire there will be some more blows landed as candidates negotiate for a position from which to continue their race for the presidential nomination.

This is where the attrition is the factor. There is no 1 dominant choice in Iowa. There likely will not be a dramatic or substantive seperation of any single candidate versus the throng of competitors in most of the other early races. Which means that money and position are critical.

The remaining top tier will be scrambling for cash, rushing out ads praising themselves and highlighting the blemishes of their opponents. With 3 way battles for some time, no one candidate will be able to pause, or focus, on a single candidate. That means that every move will be a strike to the jugular, balanced to walk the edge and not anger voters for having gone too far with the mud-slinging.

Mitt Romney has been facing this battle since early 2010. He has the organization built to handle such a challenge. He has the money to withstand the attempts to cut out his legs. He has the presence and experience to wait and let others make the mistakes in their need to rush before time is gone.

The lesson that Romney has learned is not just available to him. Rep. Ron Paul will likely follow a similar vein as he tries to recruit more support from outside his core base. Even Gingrich could once again rise from the dead, based on nothing more than letting the top tier slug it out and annihilate each other.

So far, the Republican presidential nomination race has seen a candidate drop early because he could not compete (Pawlenty). Another was lost later on, not because he failed to keep the attention of the masses or that he was outmanuevered by his peers, due to the allegations that were never proven and highly questionable to start with (Cain).

Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who had the first taste of the lead, looks likely to fall away as the cost to continue is not worth the lackluster support from voters apparent via Iowa and other places.

Jon Huntsman has not been a factor at any point, and will not become one without a miraculous event. His continued presence is a statement of determination and willpower, but not an accurate reflection of the odds to win.

So the Republican nomination is a war of attrition. Whomever uses up too much capital, or makes their moves too soon, will wind up losing their valued position or leaving themselves too weak to make it to the finish. The final victor will likely not be the choice the majority of Republicans want, but the only one left standing to chose.

Commentary - Charles Babington thinks 2012 will be close Presidential race, why?

Written by VASS - political commentary

We read the artilce by Charles Babington of the Associated Press, 2012 race likely to be close, tough, maybe brutal, and had to wonder about the 2012 Presidential election. A year to go, without a clear frontrunner in the Republican Party, and already Mr. Babington is foreseeing a battle that will be down to the wire. We just can’t buy that.

Mr. Babington is quite correct that the 2012 Presidential election will be very different than 2008. The battle on the Democratic front will not involve breaking the glass ceiling. Assuming that any Democrat is willing to take on President Obama - which would have to be Secretary of State Hilary Clinton if anyone - and that is not likely.

So with the big barrier (being anything other than a White man running for President) broken, the impetus for some is gone. While not a factor spoken about out loud, the fact is that some voters chose President Obama simply because of race and breaking that barrier. A good percentage of thse voters will return, but many will not as the motivation is not there anymore. Which means that those that would vote against President Obama based solely on his skin color should be evenly matched by those who vote for him on that same solitary basis.

We also agree that the 2012 Presidential election will be, for the overwhelming majority of Americans, about the economy and jobs. In fact this is the main source of where we disagree with Mr. Babington. Of all the issues that Americans want the president to deal with going forward, all wind up being secondary to the economy and jobs. Which sets the table for a landslide victory.

That does not mean a guaranteed, or even easy stroll to the Presidency for Republicans. It is possible for President Obama to win.

Republicans have clearly stated that President Obama has failed the economy and on the jobs front. No surprise, though even President Obama himself recognized that his failure on these 2 items virtually seals his fate for re-election (February 2009 in an interview with Matt Lauer). The dismal approval ratings and overall opinion of handling these problems has consistently been a negative indicator for re-election, and by a wide margin. Which does not indicate a close battle.

Fatigue among Liberals, minorities, and Independents has been an issue that Democrats have sought to battle against since 2010. They lost that battle in the mid-term elections, by a wave so demostrative no political spin could make it seem anything but the rout it was. The recent Special election in the New York 9th District was a clear indication that such fatigue continues unabated.

Mr. Babington identifies Congress for part of the problem that President Obama faces. While true that the House of Representatives, and the Republican majority in it, are not warming to the ideas of President Obama, it is still the President’s failure. Obama himself stated that he was a bi-partisan leader that could make things happen regardless of who controlled Congress or its parts (as he said throughout the 2008 election campaign trail). The proof has been that President Obama’s effectiveness with Congress was marginal under a Democrat supermajority and completely evaporated without it.

Again, this does not indicate a close race. It indicates a weak President that cannot control his own Party, and therefore lends itself to the thought of a landslide victory.

What makes the 2012 presidential election close, in the mind of Mr. Babington (and likely Obama supporters) are just 2 things - the Tea Party and lack of Congressional action (noted above). These he points out are negatives to Independents and could even cause Republicans to turn away. Which we think is inaccurate.

The Tea Party has been dragged through the mud by the media since it’s inception. There have been scant positive coverage, and scathing attacks at every opportunity. Some in the media have jumped at any and every opportunity of misfortune to target the Tea Party as the ultimate cause - like with early reports on the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords. The net effect of this concentrated effort has been 2-fold.

The Tea Party has solidified, and while not a large or all-encompassing movement, they have withstood shifting public opinion for more than 2 years. That solidification resulted in a large part of the steam behind the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections. This effective grassroots movement is just as likely to motivate voters in 2012 as 2010.

The second effect, while many Americans may not agree with all the values of the Tea Party, most have increased their participation and attention to issues like the deficit, government spending, and the powers of Government. As such more voters are becoming more involved (on both sides of these issues) and decreasing voter apathy. Such greater scrutiny on issues President Obama is already faltering on, again indicates landslide loss, not a close battle.

Considering that President Obama is no longer a fresh new face, has an actual track record, and is ultimately the person where the buck stops at for voters, none of this looks positive. But there is a potential for an Obama landslide victory.

IF the economy were to exceed the pathetically weak growth figures reported by the White House and economists, even to have a marginal improvement, this could spur the belief that Obama Administration policies are having a positive effect. Coupling such improvement with a resurgence of pressure on Congress to approve further Obama Administration policies would strengthen the appearance of leadership which could be a catalyst to re-election. This is especially true if the improvement and Congressional action takes place in late summer of 2012.

IF the choice of Republican candidate is too indecisive or radically Conservative, then both as a backlash and as a loss of interest, President Obama could win by a landslide. Envision Rep. Ron Paul debating with President Obama on the merits of isolating America from the world and you can see how quickly the tide could turn.

IF the Republican, and Independent, votes are split by a choice of 2 candidates against President Obama. This is the most realistic manner in which President Obama could win, and a very real possibility. If a strong and highly Conservative candidate, and a more moderate Conservative, were to both be in the running against President Obama, he would win. The split of votes would also likely cut into his own base of voters, which includes a large and highly moderate Independent representation, but the concentration of voters that remain from Liberals and Democrats along with Independants would be enough to overcome the fractured more Conservative opponents share.

Lastly, assuming that everythig else does NOT happen, and the nation continues as has been projected with President Obama facing a singular and somewhat Conservative candidate - his only opportunity to win would be

“…that President Obama must win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana in that order of importence for an electoral victory.”

This plus the 18 States that are not in question of voting Democrat, would equal a decisive victory. Based on our reviews in April 2011 and the above quoted review in August 2011, such a likelihood is a bet that is akin to playing the lotto. Could it happen? Sure, but the eloquence of President Obama would have to surpass his ability in the 2008 election. Vice President Biden would either have to be silent, or capable of speaking without gaffe for several months. In addition it would require that the unabated negative mud-slinging campaign that the Obama election campaign MUST wage, is accepted almost as widely as his campaign of hope and change, which will not return for 2012 ads. Plus there would need to been a major gaffe by his opponent, or a VP choice that was utterly laughable.

The odds of any of these 4 things happening, appears at this moment, to be small. Given all the factors, and as noted by Mr. Babington, and by economic predictions, President Obama will lose in a landslide victory more similar to the loss by President Cater than the bloody knuckle fight of 2000 or even 2004.

At this point, only wishful thinking would cause 2012 to be a close election.

Black Friday alternative

Even as Veteran’s Day approaches, with Thanksgiving to follow, retailers are gearing up for Black Friday and the Christmas holiday shopping season. In a year that has been abysmal for the unemployed, and just as bad for consumers and business alike, sales abound. Rent-a-center has already start with a pre-Black Friday sale.

Of course, just because the word sale is attached does not mean consumers will come. Competition with online retailers has intensified as the cost of gasoline increases and checks become streched even further. Consumers want a deal, the best deal, and are willing to see how good it will get.

So we have offered something that, to our knowledge, is unique. Our Buy & Win Contest.

We are not just offering the ability to purchase unique handcrafted gifts. We are not just offering the luxury of being able to make secure purchases from home. We are looking to provide the winner of our contest with 5% of all the sales we have generated since September until New Years Eve (right up to 11:59pm).

Not only does that mean that 1 winner will be able to provide fine imported gifts that can be appreciated all year, they could get a check for more than what they purchased. Plus, the more friends and people that shoppers tell about the contest who then make a purchase, the more that is available to win. Name a retail chan that will offer that to consumers.

Below is our promotional flyer about the contest, which links to a PDF that can be printed. Or you can visit Alchemy at World of VASS to see the rules and selection for yourself.

Click image to see PDF

Enjoy Black Friday if you go out and enjoy contact sports with your shopping. Or take a moment to get something special from home or at work. Either way we wish everyone the best, and hope you get that perfect gift.

NAACP promotes fear-mongering on voting

Written by Michael Vass

Just 3 days after covering the hype, by the Herman Cain Campaign and the media, over the sexual harassment scandal we now have yet another example of overreaching for political ends. This time it is the NAACP, and the extent to which Ben Jealous goes in his recent email borders on fear mongering.

Benjamin Jealous, the president of the NAACP, released an email today stating,

“Your voting rights are under attack…Our freedom is under attack…This effort is coordinated and targeted, and it is a throwback to a time that no one in our nation will want to revisit…

Today, the target is the voting rights of Black voters, Latino voters, Asian American Voters, Native American Voters, as well as students and young people, working women, and immigrants of ALL colors…

…Attacking voting rights was un-American then. Attacking voting rights is un-American now.” - Benjamin Jealous - 11/4/2011

Yes, that does not sound dire at all.

Let’s think about this. What is the NAACP upset about? Legislation passed in several States that require voters to have photo id to vote. Requiring people to prove they are who they claim to be, apparently in the mind of the NAACP, is tantamount to Jim Crow.

Of course, to our knowledge, in every State there are loitering and vagrancy laws that require adults to provide proof of who they are - which requires photo ID. To get on a plane in most larger airports across the nation photo ID is required. To get a job in the majority of companies across the country photo ID is required.

So the conspiracy is widespread apparently. People of color are being trapped in their local area, without jobs, so they can be arrested easily and denied all manner of rights - voting being on the list. How devious. The NAACP has discovered this plot that has been ongoing for DECADES across the country and now is getting out the word. Aren’t we lucky?

Still there is that little fact that voter fraud has been pervasive in recent elections. There was the voter registration fraud committed constantly by ACORN (which now exists under a host of innocuous names in the same locations and doing the same activities after ACORN came under fire). ACORN workers have been convicted of submitting false voter registration forms in Colorado Springs in 2005, Kansas City, Mo., in 2006 and King County, Wash., in 2007. The Las Vegas office was raided by a state criminal investigator in 2008. ACORN workers were also the subjects of ongoing investigations in Wisconsin, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. In the Indiana investigation, which started in early October 2008, thousands of fraudulent registration forms may have been involved.

That’s just one organization. Of course there are some cases of voter fraud alleged against the NAACP as well. NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers was convicted on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots - April 2011, Mississippi. A man in Ohio who filed possibly 48 phony ballots claimed to do so for the National Voter Fund, and was paid in crack - which the NAACP denied any connection to in 2004. But forget about that.

Forget how often that dead people are regularly counted as voting in elections across the country, via early and mail-in ballots. Forget that there are multiple organizations (Democrat and Republican) that are accused of voter registration and voter fraud each election. Because this is all about race. Or so the NAACP would make it seem.

Forget that getting photo ID is required for almost everything. Forget that the ease of getting a photo ID is about as simple as possible. Forget that for DECADES voting has occured during the work week and yet tens of millions vote each election year. People of color are being discriminated against.

Should America allow convicted criminals, felons like rapists and murderers the right to vote? There are good arguments for both sides, but the overwhelming opinion is no - and has been for decades. It is the price of their crimes and intended as a deterent - until the majority of the nation believes otherwise.

Should immigrants (meaning both illegal and legal since no distinction is made) have a Right to vote? Consider if you think that someone that actively violates Federal law (entering the nation without documentation) and evades justice, is a drain on the economy, and has an active political agenda (receiving a reward of citizenship for their crime) should be given a Right to elect politicians that may provide them with their reward? Does that sound like any ideal found in the Constitution or any law in the nation?

Because the simple logic that someone who is not willing to take the time to get a photo ID is equally not likely to go out and vote - or in the cases where they do it is likely they are voting based on little to no information beyond political party - is not logic but racism apparently. Somehow, to the NAACP, the latter logic is far more real and important.

Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of the spectre that Ben Jealous casts out is the implied thought it contains. That people of color are too poor, too lazy, and/or too diminished in thought to either afford, value, or appreciate the need for a photo ID. Voter laws need to be simplified and standards lowered to ensure that people of color are capable of meeting the bar. Such a thought is sickening.

We reject such a thought. People of color are responsible for almost $1 trillion in consumer spending a year, even in this recession. People of color have been leaders in business, medicine, science, and the nation since before America existed as a nation.

Yes we should protect the people of America from discrimination and disenfranchisement that would restrict their freedoms and Rights. But we should NOT become so frightened or coddled by organizations with political agendas that we overstep and allow fraud and illegal votes to interfere with those same Rights. Indeed we need to protect America from fear-mongering and evocative language which are intended to profit a specific political agenda at the cost of anything else.

High Tech Lynching… really now.

Written by VASS - political commentary

In politics there is no lack of over-the-top language and inferences. A decision to try to balance the budget was reportedly called an act of terrorism by Vice President Biden. Discussions on the national debt ceiling caused President Obama to get on television and frighten seniors with a threatened end to SSI checks (which could only happen if the President directed the Treasury to do so - which was left out of the rhetoric). Use of terms like “blow them out of the water”, or the use of targeting recticles in ads - by Republicans - were denounced by Democrats after the Rep. Giffords shooting (and since used by those same Democrats in their political election efforts).

That’s the nature of politics. Every event is fodder for the opponents of whomever is involved, and the proportion of enhancing the problem is magnified by the importance (or self-importance) of the politician involved. This is even worse when a Presidential election is involved.

Currently Herman Cain is learning about this. His early bouts with his views on Muslims and Mormons were reconciled, each gaining rather little coverage as early in the Republican nomination cycle he was considered incapable of winning by most [we gave him an outside chance and a likely 4th place finish]. But he pushed on, learning how politics on the Presidential level is played, and running with the ball once he was given the question he was in desperate need of - why he stated that under the Health Care Reform he would be dead today.

Cain has learned what Gov. Perry of Texas, and Rep. Michelle Bachmann before him, learned about being a frontrunner in an election cycle. Your enemies are not just across the aisle but in your own Party. Such is the widespread rumor that the article on the past sexual harrassment allegations against Cain was prompted by a GOP opponent as opposed to Democrats or pure journalistic research.

The issue at hand is being widely covered. Which reflects the status that Hermain Cain now holds. According to a NY Times poll (Oct 19 - 24) Cain leads the pack with 25%, followed by Mitt Romney at 16%. According to Gallup, Cain leads 29% to Romney’s 12% (tied with Newt Gingrich) on current image. Real Clear Politics lists Cain leading 30% with Quinnipac, and 33% with Rassmuesen. Such a strong and apparently sustainable lead paints a political target on the back.

But, the question that should be asked is if calling this news of a past allegation a “High tech lynching” is accurate or fair?

Given, Herman Cain is Black and Conservative. Among many many Liberals and Democrats that equates to calling him any and every name - Janeane Garofalo refered to Cain as a Stockholm Syndrome victim, Keith Olbermann called him ‘delusional’, as examples of the more tame far-left labeling. Accusations of diminished capacity and personal attacks are, of course, not considered racist if spoken from the mouth of a Liberal it seems.

So it is fair to say that race is a factor for the campaign of Herman Cain. Just as it is for President Obama - polls before the 2008 election predicted,

“Six percentage points is the price Barack Obama could pay on election day for being black.”

But is a targeted, if it was, article about a factual event inherently racist? Given there seems to be an argument that can be made on how similar this allegation and the press coverage it is receiving is similar to the probe on Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas when he was being vetted.

It is not uncommon for people of high stature in business and politics, to be accused of sexual harrassment. Even frivolous cases are regularly settled out of court rather than endure the legal cost and time of a trial to win. In fact it may be more of a suprise, in business, to see a high ranking success without a frivolus lawsuit or three. But to discuss this, as much as can be given the standard gag orders these suits come attached with upon settlement, is that racist?

Yes this may be politically motivated. A means to take down a candidate that some thought had no chance, and is now leading. Yes, it is a means to distract voters from the claimed merits of a economic growth plan that provides a simple to understand tax plan. Yes, it is a way to encite the racial bigotry of those that have the affliction of small-minds. But is that last answer the real source of the article?

There is no doubt that the GOP is deridded as a gathering of old white men by Liberals. There is no question that the Black community has been long fed a diet that proclaims Republicans as rich and deceptive men that want to restart plantations. There is no question that to be Black, successful, Conservative, and politically active is to be scorned by diehard African American Democrats that vote only Party-line based on the misconceptions and falsehoods that are promoted.

Still given all that, we can’t see this as a lynching. Not in a political sense, nor does this seem to be racially motivated. Political by all means, but not racial.

Herman Cain is the King-of-the-Hill at the moment. Opponents from all sides are seeking to knock him down. That’s not about race, that’s about winning an election. How some are seeking to do it (the Keith Olbermann’s and Janeane Garofalo’s of the country) is patently racist. The fact that some will never vote for a candidate simply based on race or gender, as the NY Daily News pointed out at the near pinnacle of Obamamania, is adamantly racist. But this does not rise to that bar.

Perhaps this is a subject some are afraid to broach. Perhaps politicians are too fearful to reproach a Black candidate for using racially evocative language where there seems no place for it. Perhaps America is so busy trying to stick it’s head in the sand, when it comes to race relations, to dare whisper that some things are just not about race - or gender, or religion for that matter.

What is happening to Herman Cain appears to be unfair. It appears to be politically motivated, a cheap and dirty means to unseat the guy on the throne right now. It appears, based on all evidence at the moment, to be baseless and a distraction. But at the same time, it is NOT racial. Just because a Black guy is saying it might be, does not make it so.

Herman Cain will do well to move past this political scandal in the making, and leaving the over-the-top language and inferences with it as well. He’s Conservative, a businessman, a political candidate with a decent economic plan (as good as any other currently being proposed) and that should enough to vote for or against. His skin should never be a factor among people with enough brainpower to read this article. As such, his evocative hype on this issue serves him poorly.

Perry ranch proof of racism? Or opportunistic political diversion?

Written by VASS - political commentary

There is no question that the media in the nation (generally) dislikes Conservatives and prefers President Obama for the 2012 Presidential election. By and large, the news media has bestowed preferential treatment on President Obama and his ideology since the 2008 election campaign. But the question now should be, how much of the bias is coloring the way the Republican candidates are being covered.

The most recent case in point is the hunting camp of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his family. As reported first in the Washington Post, the camp has a very old name - “Niggerhead”. A name that instantly brings up racism and anger in many.

But, is this an indication of racism? Is this a label that can be placed on Gov. Perry and his family?

In reading the article by the Post, you may think so. But such an implication should not be jumped at lightly or in haste. This kind of labeling can be the end of a career and decimate anyone - which is fair if accurate and horrendous if not.

What is clear is this. The Perry family took possession and had hunting trips at the lodge in the early 1980’s. Prior to that time, a long time prior, the location was known by the offensive title. To some locals in the area it continues to be called by that name. Thus, this was not an action by Gov. Perry nor an indication of his personal beliefs.

It is also clear, as stated by Gov. Perry directly, that the name was painted over in 1983 or 1984 largely due to his request.

“My mother and father went to the lease and painted the rock in either 1983 or 1984. This occurred after I paid a visit to the property with a friend and saw the rock with the offensive word. After my visit I called my folks and mentioned it to them, and they painted it over during their next visit.”

This claim of removing the offensive title has yet to be disputed. So, if accurate and there is no reason to believe it is not, it is an indication of a racial sensitivity rather the counter being displayed.

How common is it to find locations with racist names and terminology in America? Not hard to find at all. In Florida, prior to the Abrogating Offensive Place Names Bill, you could have located:

New York Special Election for Congressional district 9

Written by VASS - political commentary

The polls closed at 9pm tonight, and the results are still being tabulated at this time. But there is a definitive feeling that the Democrat stronghold that has been Congressional district 9 is about to be broken.

Besides the fact that Republican Bob Turner is favored by 6 points in the election, there are the key issues for that district that are pivitol for the race. Gay marriage and Isreal. Both are issues that Democrats are seen as being on the opposite side of the fence, compared to the constituents of the area. Which does not include the fact that this was the former seat of disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner - forced out of office in a major media scandal.

Also a factor in the voting is the fact that some of the worst scare tactics in politics today have been used by Democrats intent on keeping this important seat. We reported in August 23, 2011 about the shameful flyers and television ads that heaped misinformation and veiled threats at seniors in hopes of turning them away from Republicans.

Of course the fact that Democrat Dave Weprin can’t vote in the election, as he lives out of the district he hopes to win - and has no plans to move and be a part of the community he is hoping to represent.

All of this would seem to be sure ways to guarantee a Republican win in the NY-9. But there are no sure things in NY politics. Especially in New York City.

New York is well known for absentee ballots that are forged, for dead constituents, and otherwise fradulent. These kinds of dubious votes are normally the kind of thing that one might expect from ACORN (the former pro-Democrat community organization that was under 12 seperate investigations for voter fraud before disbanding, and the various offices taking on new names). Then again, in NYC ACORN just became New York Communities for Change.

So will there be a definitive winner in the NY-9 special election? Hard to say. Already Republicans have gotten the absentee ballots impounded as it has been verified that 5 known deceased voters have absentee ballots, and many voters - who never requested a ballot - have received them which is illegal. If the race is close, be assured that there will be a recount and an investigation into the absentee ballots.

But there is also another factor to consider about the special election. New York must lose 2 seats, due to the exodus of population from the state (a 50 year trend at this point according to Census records). Long before the special election, Congressional district 9 was one of the targets. If the seat falls to Republicans, what are the odds that NY-9 is selected as one of the seats that will be lost?

Specualtion aside, at this moment with 18 precincts reporting in, Bob Turner is winning 53% to 47% for Dave Weprin according to the Associated Press.

Update - 11:09pm - The current AP results show Bob Turner with 52% and Dave Weprin with 47% - 163 of 512 precincts reporting.

American Jobs Act of 2011 - 5 reasons to delay and get it right

Written by VASS - political commentary

We have been away from the political landscape for a while now. Understandably we have been focused on the 2011 flood in Binghamton and the surrounding areas in New York and Pennsylvania. But we will try to reover some sense of naormalcy, and jump in with both feet.

The American Jobs Act of 2011.

There is a lot being said about this proposal from President Obama. Much of it from the White House itself. It is presented as non-partisan, and providing essential items for all political parties. It has been demanded that it be passed by Congress immediately.

But what does the plan actually propose? Can it actually do any good? Is there anything new? Seperating the hype from the fact, there are some immediate observations.

First, this is a combination of a multitude of ideas that are already in place and failing to do anything close to expectations. $140 billion is targeted to infrastructure, as the White House states,

“…putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.”

Just a year ago that was touted as “shovel-ready jobs”, which have shown to be both non-stimulative and not useful in creating long-term job growth. Therefore this is money being shunted down a hole that already has gobbled a good portion of $814 billion over the last 2 1/2 years.

Not a benefit, but very positive for a President in need of something to stand on as he seeks re-election in 2012. Ultimately, more of the same and thus should be expected to result in more of the same - a waste of money.

Second, extending unemployment benefits. Seen as a “job creator” by Rep. Nancy Pelosi in July 2010, yet the official unemployment rate has marginally improved from the 9.8% when she made the statement. In fact, if you count the tens of thousands that no longer count because they are not receiving a check from the Government, its easily argued that unemployment has steadily INCREASED since the Stimulus was set in place.

Simply put, economist James Sherk (senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation) said,

“…the federal government has spent over $300 billion on unemployment benefits since Obama took office. It hasn’t stimulated the economy before. It’s not going to stimulate it now.”

Third, going back to the Withe House Fact Sheet, it will prevent 280,000 teacher layoffs. Correct us if we are wrong, but the Stimulus spent $100 billion on doing the same thing. Then in April 2010 another emergency $25 billion was spent on the same exact thing.

Again, as economist Sherk said, “It hasn’t stimulated the economy before. It’s not going to stimulate it now.”

Fourth,

“Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket.” - White House Fact Sheet on American Jobs Act 2011

Yet another item that was tried previously. It was called Making Homes Affordable Act. It was such a failure it has been out of the White House talking points since 2010 - with good reason. In February 2011 we noted it’s “success” rate

“The Making Homes Affordable program has been a $75 billion waste of taxpayer funds; with more than half of those enrolled dropping from the program and 54% of those that were helped by the program redefaulting.”

Over 1.2 million applied, to date just over 400,000 have been helped in more than 2 years. But now President Obama wants to do it again. What are the odds doing the same thing again, for less money, will yeild a better result?

The fifth point is again a direct quote from the White House,

“Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan”

Of course there were no details on how this will be paid for at the time it was released. Which raises the questions if it will be “deficit nuetral” like the Health Care Reform, which we noted January 2011

“Since passage the CBO has revealed that any projected cost savings in healthcare for the nation were the faulty calculations due to incomplete data. Given the full scope of the law and it’s entire language the once projected $100 million gain has turned into a complete burden on the nation. It will in fact add billions to the national deficit in the first 10 years.”

To be precise on what the American Jobs Act of 2011 states, (as found by Andrew Stiles of The National Review)

If a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than “$1,650,000,000,000″ in deficit reduction… is enacted by January 15, 2012, then the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code . . . shall not be in effect for any taxable year.

In other words, if Congress passes this Bill, and only funds about 1/3 of it via tax increases over 10 years, then the remaining roughly $350 billion will just be added to the deficit.

How does that fit in with “Fully Paid”? We have no idea either. We expect that like the Stimulus and Health Care Reform, the White House did not expect anyone to actually read the entire 155 pages of the Bill.

So there are 5 major problems with the proposal from President Obama. Reasons why it should not be passed immediately and should be broken apart and redone with ideas that are not simply politically advantageous to a President seeking re-election, but to the American public that is supposed to get a benefit from the Bill.

These are just 5 problems. There are more. There are also a few ideas that are actually new thoughts from the Obama Administration (mostly borrowed from Conservatives) and could potentially help the nation. We suggest Congress actually read the Bill, take it apart, and get it right. Honestly, if this were so important, and such a rush, wouldn’t the President have cancelled his vacation and called Congress into session to get it passed 3 weeks ago?

As Binghamton recovers, volunteers come forward

Written by VASS - political commentary

There are many stories in the news of the aftermath of the 2011 Binghamton Flood. There is the news of the animals that were allowed to die at Petco in Johnson City (Petco has released a statement on why they did not evacuate their animals sooner, though the location had also flooded in 2006 - currently all surviving animals are relocated to Syracuse). There is news that at least 2 have died (both in Bradford County PA) from the flooding, and hundreds have lost thier homes and are in shelters across the affected area.

The mood is bleak.

But that is not all the news. We have been directly contacted by several people, like Franklin Crawford of Ithaca and editior of TinyTownTimes.com, seeking to volunteer their time and energy. They are looking for ways to help those in need in Binghamton and the areas affected by the flooding.

These Good Samaritans need to be applauded. More importantly they need to be directed. We are currently collecting and will be listing the names of organizations and contacts where help can be given. We will be listing where donations for help can be given. We hope that this will help in the efforts of those near and far who wish to help the many that have suffered because of this natural disaster.

So far we have asked the following for their help in listing all the organizations and individuals that might be able to help direct volunteers and donations to where they are needed most:

The office of Mayor Matt Ryan
Binghamton City Councilmembers Lea Webb, Teri Rennia, and Robert Weslar
Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo
State Senator Tom Libous
The office of Rep. Maurice Hinchey
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Senator Chuck Schumer

Even though this is a weekend, and all the above are very busy with their efforts to organize help and continue the operations of the area, we have received the following from the Office of Mayor Matt Ryan - volunteers can contact the United Way of Broome County. Of course there is also the Red Cross.

*Update - We were notified by the office of Assemblywoman Lupardo that her office will be working on this issue Monday, Sept 12th.

Below will be our growing list of organizations where volunteers and donations may be sent to. We hope that this will help, and inspire, and bring some comfort to those in need.

Red Cross - Broome County - (607) 785-7207
United Way of Broome County - For those in need of aid 1-800-901-2180

Video of the 2011 Binghamton NY area flood - Sept 8, 2011

Written by VASS political commentary

Continuing our coverage of the Binghamton Flood of 2011, we present the following video of the evacuation of State Street and Main, as well as the flood waters and one of those impacted by the flood already. We also present images, submitted by local residents and readers of this site from around the area impacted by the flooding.

This will be a long process of recovery. What needs to be noted is that flood waters are rising and residents should heed the evacuation calls by First Responders and local Government.

The best comments and answers by the Republican nominees at MSNBC debate

Written by VASS - political commentary

The following video contains what we believe are the best performances of each of the 2012 Republican candidates during the MSNBC/Politico debate. Due to issues from the severe flodding in the Binghamton area, the last 15 minures of the debate were not included in the video. Even so, we believe we have culled the best, and perhaps the most controversial for one or 2 candidates, out of the debate.

We have tried to include the question being asked and as much of the relevant portion of the question as possible, to give full context to what was said. Please see our review of the MSNBC debate to get our thoughts on what happened, and who won.

Janeane Garafalo - the definitive source on what is Black

Written by VASS - political commentary

If those on the far-left have any question on why so many find their positions obnoxious, and their rhetoric silly, they only have to look to Janeane Garafalo.

Oppressors? Racists? An organization that seeks to marginalize people of color, for the sole purpose of advancing an agenda. These are the words of Garafalo. A White woman, who has never spent a moment being Black let alone having lived through the Civil Rights Movement nor had to endure the difficulty of advancing in business as a person of color.

Is this the voice that leads the Black community? Is her view the consensus? Is it even accurate?

According to Garafalo, and former President Carter, opposition to Obama Administration policies are racist and perhaps a form of dementia

These are their words. They claim to speak on behalf of people of color. They claim to know what is best for people of color. They have identified opposition to President Obama as definitively wrong and vile.

So what do they have to say about Rep. Maxine Waters of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Ms. Garafalo, and other members of the far-left, is Rep. Waters a racist? Is she suffering from Stockholm Syndrome from being in the Congressional Black Caucus? Is she being paid to say she, and the entire Congressional Black Caucus, are ready to unleash on President Obama for his failures?

Why is it that when people like Janaeane Garafalo and President Carter tell us what Black people should and should not be, it brings up thoughts of plantations and slavery? Why is it when serious questions are presented to President Obama, any person of color asking the question is brushed off as insane? Why is it that White members of the far-left are adamant on how EVERY person of color should act and react?

Is it not racist to assume that EVERY person of color in the nation must think as as few White liberals think they should? Is it not racist to demean someone simply based on the color of their skin and the choice they make? Is it not racist to isloate people of color simply because they don’t agree with what a few rich, White, elites decide is best?

The reality is that African Americans are suffering worse than the general population of America in the current, continuing downturn. Thats through the promised yet never actualize promises of the Obama Stimulus, the Health Care Reform, the control of the House Senate and Presidency by Democrats in a supermajority that ensured passage of ANYTHING they wished. But to say that, with all the results, is abysmal and detrimental is racist - according to the all knowing and definitive decree of far-left liberals like Janeane Garafalo - is what is absurd.

The definition of what is Black is anything but definitive. There is no cookie-cutter mold for being Black, or a person of color. Just as there is no list of prerequisites for being White, or Asian, or anything else. Only the most obnoxious, meglomaniacal, and racist person would assume that they know what is best for a race of people that they know nothing about being.

We present an open invitation to Janeane Garafalo to speak with M V Consulting president Michael Vass, any day in any forum, on what it is to be Black or a person of color. We give an open invitation to Ms. Garafalo to debate her credentials on knowing what is best for all African Americans and people of color. We offer the open invitation to discuss if it is racist to hold an opinion, or to be lead by a leash by a miniority of elistist rich Whites.

We dare her to take us up on this.

Binghamton North Side grocery: Press & Sun late to the news but welcome

Written by VASS - political commentary

We noticed that today, the Press & Sun - the local newspaper serving the Binghamton area - had an article an the current status on the North Side Grocey Project. An issue that we have great interest in and spoke about after hearing Councilwoman Lea Webb speak on March 24, 2011.

At the time, we were the only news organization seemingly paying attention to the problems with the North Side Grocery Project. The other news we saw had adulation for the stated progress. There are numerous articles about how grand the idea was and what a help it would be to the local community. But amazingly, no one had addressed the fact nothing was getting done.

Thus we went out and researched the issue. We tried to contact all the figurehead politicians that were involved with the Project. We asked questions, and searched for answers. The result was our article on April 5, 2011.

To date, we still have yet to receive answers from Councilwoman Lea Webb, or most of the other politicians that were connected to the North Side Grocery. But we did isolate how much money has been wasted, and the inaction that has occured. Items that Oprah Winfrey either did not know about, or overlooked when she praised the project.

So when we read the article from the Press & Sun - Push for new Binghamton grocery bogs down - we hoped that more information would be forthcoming. Given they have far more resources and personnel, it would seem to be safe to assume they might have gotten further than we did.

Wrong.

The article from the Press & Sun reads like a virtual copy of the information we found. In fact it skimps on the details, just noting that there is a problem not being addressed. Which they could have gleaned from doing a google search on North Side Grocery Binghamton, where our articles are still the 2nd and 4th results. Actually, we think that had they read our artiucle they would have garnered more information than their article covers - but that could just be our bias on the matter.

Still for an article that graces the front page of the Press & Sun, done 4 months after we already tackled the issue and gathered more relevant information, we feel let down by the Press & Sun. While we enjoy the vindication of what we have already said, we do not see how this moves the North Side Project closer to completion or gains further accountability for the funds that have been allocated.

The North Side Grocery is a great idea. It is needed by the community. To do so seems to require a push from the news media, forcing the politicians involved in the project - who basked in the high hopes and campaign contributions it undoubtably raised for them - to be accountable to the community that remains in need and without benefit. Even as their tax dollars are being wasted.

Suffice we welcome the Press & Sun to the problem we already identified in detail. Now we hope they can pick up the ball and help us run with it a bit farther than we have already taken it.

How to make a 4 year old a deadly weapon

Written by Black Entertainment USA

For decades now, the image promoted by the media has been that young Black youth are dangerous. That Black communities are unsafe. That extreme actions need to be taken. But how true is that image?

Of course there are issues facing the Black community today. Just as there are problems with White youth, and children of every creed and category across the nation today. Drug use, like heroin and PCP, is a massive problem in suburbs as well as, if not more than, urban areas. Black youth unemployment is nearly 19%, but White youth also exceeds the national average of 9.1%. As bad as it may be for one side, there is a comparable, if not in actual numbers larger, problem in White communities. But the media refrains from honesty.

It’s easy to point out that television continues to paint a picture of America with population diversity more akin with 1950 America than the 21st century. It’s easy to point out that movies and television (including cable) contain about 7% diversity - combining every minority in the nation. If the diversity behind the cameras were to be included into this figure, you still won’t clear 10%.

But the thing that gets me, is how the media is willing to twist fact. Forget the fiction of television shows and movies. Forget the imbalance of entertainment. Racial bias reaches to the way real life events are portrayed.

In Chicago, on CBS News, the clearest example of racial bias in the 21st century may have occured. When you see the following video, consider if you think that the edited video not only belittles the community it is reporting on, but frames people of color in a mode that sounds more like the openly racist 1950’s and not 2011.

So according to CBS, a Black child of 4 needs to be disuaded from becoming a police officer? People of color must be shielded from the possibility of being useful and beneficial parts of their community. Instead, it is better to promote the lie that people of color are violent?

If you wondered if America still contained racism, if we have entered a post-racial world just because we have a Black (actually bi-racial) President, this video of an actual news story on CBS in Chicago provides the clear answer.

Reviewing our consideration on 2012 Presidential election

Written by VASS - political commentary

On April 6, 2011 we looked at the landscape of the nation and determined what the potential outlook for a re-election of President Obama may be. Since then we have re-evaluated the Republican candidates looking for the nomination and a chance to challenge President Obama in 2012. Thus we believe that it is time to take another look at where President Obama stands.

The latest Real Clear Politics approval rating from President Obama is 43.5% with 51.2% disapproving. Since April that has dropped 3.1% in approval. A bad sign for any President seeking re-election. Even worse when the prospect of economic recovery was shot down yesterday with the announcement of the Fed that interest rates will not foreseeably increase until 2013 - meaning abysmal growth if at all for the next 2 years.

In February 2011 the 10 States least approving of President Obama averaged just 35.77% approval (WY, ID, WV, UT, OK, AK, KY, MT, AR, KS - in order from lowest to highest). As of August 8, 2011 the bottom 10 States average an approval of 33.7% (ID, WY, UT, OK, WV, AR, MT, KY, ND, with AL and KS tied - in order from lowest to highest). A drop of 2.07% in 6 months.

Looking at the states that we isolated in April as critical for the re-election of President Obama we see the following:

Colorado 44% - down 1.2%
Florida - 47% - up 1.2%
Indiana - 42% - down 1.9%
Iowa - 49% - up 1.5%
Nevada - 44% - down 3%
New Hampshire - 40% - down 1.3%
North Carolina - 46% - down .9%
Ohio - 45% - down 2.4%
Oregon - 44% - down 3.8%
Pennsylvania - 48% - up 1.7%
Virginia - 46% - down .4%

The next change over 6 months was a decrease in approval of 8.6% for the above states.

We also looked at the unemployment rate for those states, as the economic condition of the population likely will be a factor in their votes, or turning out to vote. The lastest change, as of Bureau of Labor Statistics, for June 2011 shows:

Colorado 8.5% - down .8%
Florida - 10.6% - down .9%
Indiana - 8.3% - down .5%
Iowa - 6% - down .1%
Nevada - 12.4% - down 1.2%
New Hampshire - 4.9% - down .5%
North Carolina - 9.9% - up .2%
Ohio - 8.8% - down .4%
Oregon - 9.4% - down .8%
Pennsylvania - 7.6% - down .3%
Virginia - 6% - down .4%

The total change was an average of .52% better (less unemployment) than the prior March 2011 figures.

Based firmly on these figures we determined that President Obama must win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana in that order of importence for an electoral victory. Further, he must win at least 3 of these to have any chance of victory in 2012. We hased that on the assumption that President Obama will win 18 States (strongly or leaning Democrat) that he carried in 2008, and the new electoral math of those States after taking into account the population changes according to the 2010 Census.

We noted that there were several factors that could help or hurt the President. The most prominent was the economy. If the economy improved and jobs in these States dramatically improved he would fare far better in the 2012 election.

As of yesterday, with the Fed action and announcement, the hope of an improved economy, from the Stimulus, Health Care Reform, or any other current proposal has evaporated. It is likely that these States, and the rest of the nation, will hover in a range similar to that of the past 6 months - potentially worse if another credit rating agency downgrades the US. That downgrade would force interest rates up between 1 - 2%, and severely hamper the already feeble economy.

As of this moment stability in the Middle East is no more assured or apparent than in April. The outlook for it to become so is just as unlikely as previously. The war in Libya continues with no end in foreseeable sight. While operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, continued losses to military personnell are expected and occuring.

New instability in Europe and England is a negative that was not forseen and may have ripples that will negatively impact the US.

Lastly we looked at the Tea Party and the Republican candidates. The Tea party, while being demonized by the Left, are a political reality now. This was confirmed in the budget and debt ceiling debates. Their focus on the spending in Washington will directly affect the 2012 election. It is also a sentiment that is gaining traction among Democrats and Republicans, much to the dismay of both Parties.

As for the Republican candidate that may face President Obama, there still is no clear leader. Not that one was expected at this early date. Still, all of the potential nominees are aggressively targeting the economic policy of the obama Administration, and the pall that has settled on the growth of the nation. Considering the record of the Obama Administration on domestic issues alone, this is a weight that is more likely to drag the President down than raise him up.

Thus at this point, we continue to predict that President Obama will lose the 2012 election. We believe that based on the economic outlook and approval ratings, there is no reason to expect a homerun between now and the election. In fact the odds favor several negative and painful outcomes for the nation in the next year. All of which will lie upon the doorstep of the President as he is the leader of the nation, for good or bad.

As always, this is not written in stone. Far too many factors can come up that have not been forseen, or considered unlikely outcomes. The actual Republican candidate, and the ooutcome of actual debates with President Obama could sway the nation either way. International actions may create new opportunities or downfalls. The economic hurdles facing the nation, notably the deficit and the means by which it may realistically and definitively be reduced, still lie in the future.

We will continue to review the situation for the President, and the Republican nominees. But the most critical thing we can advise readers, is that no matter what we or any pundit may say or predict, the election is in the hands of the public. It is up to voters to review the campaign speeches, the voting records, and political actions of the candidates and President Obama. It is up to voters to determine which is the best choice for America, now and in the future. We do not presume to know what the American people will come to a consensus on, we just hope to elicit active participation in the voting process.

How do the Republican Presidential candidates rank right now

Written by VASS - political commentary

With the Fox News/Washington Examiner debate about 24 hours away, and the critical Iowa Caucus just 5 days away, we thought it might be of interest to look at how the announced Republican candidates for the 2012 Presidential election are doing. We are not considering Texas Gov. Rick Perry, nor any of the minor candidates without national recognition in the ranking, though they will be discussed in the analysis.

As a total, based on polls from August 2nd - August 9th (from Public Policy Polling, Quinnipiac University Poll, Rasmussen Report) covering 7 States (IA, FL, MI, NV, PA, VA, VT), the race looks like this:

Commentary on letter from Senator Schumer - August 1, 2011

First we want to again thank Senator Charles Schumer for responding to our letter. We feel it is the utmost of importance that elected politicians hear from, and respond to, the concerns of constituents. So we applaud his response, in that it was a response.

We also want to mention that we will not beat a dead horse. It is obvious that the letter sent to M V Consulting president Michael Vass was hardly timely. It arrived 19 days after the intial letter was sent. It also happened to be after a debt ceiling deal was made, and voted on - making it virtually moot except in explainig the views of Sen. Schumer.

But we will give the Senator the benefit of the doubt. Even if this was a form letter sent to any constituent asking any question about the debt ceiling (we will explain this thought further on) by one of many staffers, we will accept the timeframe on the basis that Sen. Schumer was busy working with the Democrat leadership in trying to strike a deal before the deadline. If his priority, and that of his staff, was averting a potentially massive problem we can readily accept getting a response late.

That said there are several things that must be said about the letter from Sen. Schumer:

1) It addresses none of the questions asked of Senator Schumer (as well as Senator Gillibrand and Rep. maurice Hinchey - who have yet to respond) directly.

2) Constituents can take no assurance that Senator Schumer emphasized the need for President Obama to ensure that Social Security recipients would receive a check. President Obama threatened they might not get their checks, to much media fanfare and upon investigation determined that such would ONLY happen if the President directed checks not to be issued. By not answering this question it raises a doubt that Sen. Schumer would have held the President to more than a partisan stance on the issue.

3) No attention was given to the factual experience of New York State, in that simply raising taxes did NOT improve the economy nor resolve the deficit. It can be argued that the 2nd paragraph in the letter by Sen. Schumer in fact gives justification to maintaining (at least) current spending levels -

“However, while every Member of Congress sincerely wants to tackle our budget problems, we must also consider the long term health of our economy which is why we need to raise the debt ceiling as part of this process.”

4) Rather than answer what changes in spending he could live with, Sen. Schumer instead chose to respond with a statement that appears to be inflammatory and factually incorrect.

“Interest rates would skyrocket, costing the average American $1,000 more a year to pay their mortgage.”

Based on our reasearch before and after the debt deal, we found the following examples, among many:

Senator Charles Schumer responds to Michael Vass of M V Consulting, Inc.

Written by VASS - political commentary

At 7:25pm on August 1, 2011, Senator Charles Schumer sent a response to Michael Vass President of M V Consulting, Inc. Senator Schumer was responding to the letter sent on July 13, 2011 (Letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Maurice Hinchey on debt ceiling).

The following is the VERBATIM copy of what was sent:

Dear Mr. Vass:

Thank you for writing and sharing you concerns about government spending. Like you, I believe it is important to responsibly cut government spending to reduce the deficit and debt as well as protect our long term economic health without sacrificing vital government services.

There is no question that there needs to be a deliberate effort to curb government spending in order to lessen the burden on future generations. However, while every Member of Congress sincerely wants to tackle our budget problems, we must also consider the long term health of our economy which is why we need to raise the debt ceiling as part of this process.

Defaulting on our obligations would have catastrophic results for the already fragile American economy. Default would raise interest payments and weaken the dollar — causing average New Yorkers to pay more for everything from gasoline to food. Interest rates would skyrocket, costing the average American $1,000 more a year to pay their mortgage. While these consequences would cause great hardship to individual New Yorkers, they would cause even greater problems nationally by weakening our economy which would, in turn, make our debt and deficit problems even worse.

We are running out of time to come up with a plan that will put the United States back on a path to fiscal responsibility before the debt ceiling is reached. The time has come for all parties to come together for the good of the nation and make compromises to both cut our debt and deficit as well as protect our nation’s long term economic growth.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance on this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

We thank Senator Schumer for responding to our letter, and providing the above informatioon on a critical issue that affects not only his constituents in New York, but also Americans across the country.

The race of President Obama - pro or con, it still amounts to nothing

Written by VASS - political commentary

Recently, we received a comment on a post that irked us. Not because of what was being said, or who was saying it, but what was implied.

The exact words were

“I’m tired of the raciest overtones and I believe that the GOP will not be happy until they bring this country down.”

It doesn’t matter who said it or in reply to on what article. The though is the key. A theme that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee recently spouted on the floor of the House. A theme that is a constant among many of the most extreme of Liberals.

“…I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness of this president. Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is the question that is being raised.”

The implication is

If you say you disagree with President Obama, It is because you must be a racist.

The theme is ridiculous. But even Democrats like former President Carter have uttered words that evoke that message. The major media has largely run with that message on almost every opposition to President Obama since before he took office.

But let’s stop to think about this for a moment. Is it racist to disagree with President Obama? Is there really no other logical reason to oppose some of his political positions than the fact he has a permanent tan? Even when such opposition comes from people equally of color?

So, under that logic, every Person of Color that opposed President Bush did so because they were racist? The same is true of President Clinton. And President Carter. That is the implication. That the ONLY reason anyone could oppose a sitting President is because they hate the color of skin of whomever holds the office. Oh, and as for say President Ronald Reagan, well opposiition from other Whites MUST be because they hate their own race and are sellouts. Or how about the implication made by President Carter, that the people who carried around signs depicting President Bush as Hitler, and protesting his policies, are just racists? Is there a Democrat, elected or not, that is willing to stand by that statement? Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, any comment?

When you interject other Presidents into the same line of reasoning, suddenly it becomes clear how lopsided and ignorant such an implication is.

In fact, one of the best ways we have ever learned to explain racism are by examples, and reversing the color or those involved in the example. Maybe one of the best examples of this is depicted in the movie A Time To Kill

Now imagine she is White. The men that would do such a thing are animals. Their skin color is irrelevant to what they did, the attrocity of it. But take that same kind of reasoning and now apply it to President Obama, or President Bush.

Is President Obama being opposed because he is Black, or because he is the President? Was President Bush opposed because he was White, or because he was President? Both Presidents have had opponents mock them. Both have had the small-minded spitefully ridicule them and their actions. Both men have had pundits and elected officials oppose their ideals and political actions. Where does race apply?

Do you recall the images of President Bush as the Joker? Do you recall the delight of the media when a shoe was thrown at the President of the United States? Do you think there would have been the same glee if President Obama has a shoe thrown at him? Do you think comedians would have laughed and mocked the scene? Why is it different then?

America is in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. We still use and buy oil, as much as before. We still have a massive army, and live a better quality of life than 95% of the world. Fanatical Islamists still want ALL of America to be wiped of the face of the Earth. Nations across the globe still denounce every action, or inaction, that we take.

At home, a majority of Americans oppose many of the policies of President Obama, just like President Bush at times. In fact, just like most Presidents since Nixon - at least part of the time of their Presidency. Where is this different? Where is this a “unique” event based on the color of skin of the President?

If we are honest, and set aside political preferences, then we all realize that race is not important when discussing President Obama. His race does not make the Health Care Reform better or worse. His skin tone does not influence the number of people unemployed. His permanent tan does not alter the number of people that have had their homes foreclosed. His birthright of color has not stopped a bullet fired at a single soldier, nor altered the increase in food prices due to ethanol production. The Blackness (or Whiteness as he is bi-racial lest we forget) of President Obama has not removed a single dollar from the interest of the debt that is being accumulated right now.

The issue of race is a distraction from the reality. A way to enflame emotions. A way to stop people from thinking about the facts as they exist. The use of race is, in this application, a means of buying votes on the cheap.

To use my example, reverse the color of President Obama. He is as White as former President Clinton. Or Carter. He has followed the exact same policies. What changes? What is different because of his skin tone?

Nothing.

Therefore opposing the policies of President Obama is not about race. We dare any Democrat, elected or not, to provide 1 law or proposal that was not passed, or even opposed, because of the skin color of President Obama and not his political beliefs.

We ask each of you, think about it. Name 1 thing that is political that President Obama has done that was opposed ONLY because of his race. Even secondarily, even denarily. We are beyond sure, that it cannot be done. Because while it may sell newspapers, draw a television audience, or pack a comedy club it isn’t real.

House Representatives need to do their job

Written by Michael Vass

No matter how you feel about the debt ceiling, higher taxes on the “rich”, or even how you tend to vote you expect that your elected politician is going to act in your best interest - generally voting what the majority that they represent believe. That is their job, it is an obligation. It has NOTHING to do with politics.

Given that fact, that obligation, you would expect that on a matter so important to the nation - the debt ceiling and Government spending - EVERY politician would have a vote. That vote would be for or against. The vote should be based on the will of the constituents that each politician represented, but in the real world many politicians have more loyalty to their politicl party rather than the voters that elected them. Still, even based on Party lines, there should be no vote that is anything but Aye or Nay.

Yet, yesterday, 8 House Representatives chose to avoid making their vote count. We will excuse Rep. Gabrielle Giffords as we are aware of her medical condition that prevents her vote, but the others (Donald Young [R] - AK, Kathy Castor [D] - FL, Michael Capuano [D] - MA, Keith Ellison [D] - MN, Eliot Engel [D] - NY, Maurice Hinchey [D] - NY, Earl Blumenauer [D] - OR)? They opted to say nothing. An option that is clearly not the view of the public or their Party. Why?

As an example there is Rep. Maurice Hinchey, our representative for the NY 22nd Congressional district. He has held this office since 1993. He is a stunch Democrat, and rarely deviates from Party lines. Yesterday he made no vote on the HR 2560, a bill that directly affect his constituents and their families, like the rest of the nation.

This is an obligation of the position to be elceted to the House of Representatives. This has consequences for decades. This has immediate ramifications. This, by definition, is the sort of vote that is why there is a Congress. Rep. Hinchey just let it pass.

Now we want to be fair, Rep. Hinchey did recently have cancer treatment. But it was the office of Rep. Hinchey itself that announced

“Hinchey’s office has said he would work and travel to Washington, D.C., for votes throughout the entire course of treatment.”

So he is well enough to do his job. Which says nothing of the fact that he is today actively promoting a Bill that he co-sponsored. Which leads us to understand that Rep. Hinchey could have made a vote, Aye or Nay.

Is it too much to hold an elected politician accountable for their actions? Is it wrong to expect that they fulfill their obligations, at the very least on Bills that affect the nation for decades and are in response to an immediate need?

We aren’t asking Rep. Hinchey, or the other 6 Representatives, to vote a specific way (well maybe to vote the majority views of their constituents over blanket Party line votes). In fact we don’t expect anything more from Rep. Hinchey, or the other 6, than what has been consistent in their voting record. But we do believe that their obligation needs to be fulfilled. At the very least, on matters that are of significance to the nation like this vote is.

Voters did not choose to elect Rep. Hinchey, or any member of Congress, to promote and vote on pet projects, special interest items, and safely assured partisan issues. We elected them to stand up and at the very least vote their core principles. Maybe even read a Bill or two.

We are enraged that members of Congress would shirk their responsibility when the nation is in immenent need. We are sure that they are going to ignore the situation, expecting that voters will forget, or assume a vote was made - likely on Party lines. But if nothing else there will be this record.

One other thing we will note. We ask readers if their Representative (Donald Young [R] - AK, Kathy Castor [D] - FL, Michael Capuano [D] - MA, Keith Ellison [D] - MN, Eliot Engel [D] - NY, Earl Blumenauer [D] - OR) has acted as Rep. Maurice Hinchey has in regard to the debt ceiling. Have you tried to ask your Representative about their actions and talks on the debt ceiling? Have they failed to answer you, essentially ignoring you and the issue?

We wonder, what would happen if voters treated the above Representatives in the same manner as they appear to be treating their constituents. What if we ignored their requests for funding? What if we decided not to vote when they plead for re-election and ignore mentioning their failure to live up to the obligations they were elected to abide by? Or are they that sure that the public will forget and/or not care how they do their jobs?

We still look forward to Rep. Maurice Hinchey answering our questions on the debt ceiling. We still would enjoy a response on why Rep. Hinchey chose to ignore his obligation on HR 2560. We are still willing to provide his response VERBATIM, and interview him at his conveinience on this or any matter. We extend that offer to any of the Representatives named in this article, even though they are not our Representative.

Again, we will state that this is not about what vote would have been made. This is not about Party politics. It is simply about accountability for a job they actively requested and the obligation that goes with it. We ask these elected officials to do no more than what the public is expected to do at their jobs every day - live up to their obligations. The very least they can do is to do their jobs when it matters.