www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B6-spRak_4

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Sam Waterston Wants to Restore Law and Order to Congress

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Propaganda Network Fox News Should Be Censured Over Acorn and Sherrod

1 Comments

• At July 23, 2010, Martin Hash martinhash.com wrote:

  Fox News is not owned by Americans. It's mostly owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch (Australian) and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud (Saudi Arabia), who is reported to have input on the spin of stories. That makes what they report propaganda - not news. The BBC doesn't pretend to be American. I think there is a legitimate fraud suit here.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2010 Netroots Nation Live Stream

A Democratic President and a Republican Congress will be good for the country.  Total gridlock will mean special interests will not be able to get any legislation passed, a much better outcome than we have today.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Gridlock Can Be A Good Thing

Behind it All: Fair Elections Now!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwziqBF618I

Surprisingly, Senator Patty Murray has not indicated her support of this legislation.  Senator Cantwell is a co-sponsor.  Bob Burr, who is running against Senator Murray as a Democrat, has this to say:

Even though Bob Burr has no chance of overtaking Senator Murray in the primary (and this is a big part of why Congress is a dysfunctional government entity), one still wonders why the incumbent Senator would so blatantly favor special interests over the people of Washington by not endorsing a significant proposal to reform campaign finance. After all, the Fair Elections Now Act is voluntary.  She can still fundraise all she wants.  Oh but if you consider that lobbyists are now Senator Murray’s biggest campaign donors, it all makes sense.  Why rock the boat?

Please call Senator Murray and ask her why she is not endorsing the Fair Elections Now Act.  Even though we already know why.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Senator Murray, We Know Why You Won’t

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Of/By/4 – Change Congress – New Lessig Powerpoint

Two things are certain in life, death and taxes. Benjamin Franklin

Well Ben, you are right about life and taxes, but you are not correct about death and taxes.  If you die in 2010 no matter how big a nest egg you have accumulated there is no estate tax. Nada. And your heirs will receive all of your wealth tax-free.

There is no estate tax for the year 2010 thanks to the misguided tax legislation of Bush and Congress.   For almost all of us that is a meaningless fact. In 2009 when there was an estate tax, almost half of the tax was paid by the richest 1 in 1000.

The fact that so few actually pay the tax and the few that do are the wealthiest among us is what makes the estate tax a great tax.  So it is a disgrace that our incompetent and corrupt Congress has allowed this tax to fade away for the year 2010.  Especially when you tie that fact to the enormous fiscal deficit spending of the Federal government on unnecessary foreign occupations, misguided bank bailouts, needed assistance for the unemployed and spending to stimulate the domestic economy.

If Warren Buffett were to die this year with an estimated net worth of say $37 billion (his estimated net worth in 2009),  his estate would escape about $19 billion in taxes.  That is about the same amount as the entire BP oil disaster fund.  Do you think it would really matter to his heirs that instead of inheriting say $5 billion they only received $2.5 billion?  If it does matter to them, too bad.   You would have to spend over $33 million dollars a year or over $90,000 a day over the course of your life (for 75 years) in order to use up an inheritance of $2.5 billion.  Do you see why the estate tax is the best tax ever devised by man?  And on top of all this, the people who pay the tax are dead so they can’t even complain.

Senators Sanders, Harkin and Whitehouse have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act and are looking for cosponsors of the legislation.  99.75% of all estates would be exempt from the tax.  That means 99.75% of us would not be effected in any way by re-instituting this tax.

A letter to their colleagues in the Senate is below.  Please contact your Senators’ offices asking for their co-sponsorship.   Here is how:

Responsible Estate Tax Bill

You can read more about it here and here.

Here is Senator Sanders on unemployment benefits and the estate tax:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX72bm_5254

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Death and Taxes -- This is a Great Time to Die (For Very Very Few of Us)

2 Comments

• At June 25, 2010, Martin Hash martinhash.com wrote:

  Just to be clear - if Congress does absolutely NOTHING, the Estate Tax WILL be reinstituted next year to the 2001, $1,000,000 exclusion. The legislation will raise that level to the 2009 limit of $3,500,000. If you don't want it raised - do nothing! (Personally, I think it should be raised to $2,000,000 - the same as the Washington State exclusion.)

• At June 26, 2010, John democracyforvancouver.org wrote:

  The tax rates will be higher under this legislation on lower estate values than 2001 law which would, along with the "billionaire's surtax", offset to some degree the loss of revenue from the higher exclusion amount. How the tax revenue from the old law versus the proposed law would actually compare is unknown by me.

  This legislation is a preemptive strike against making the 2010 law of no estate tax permanent which the Walmart family is desperately trying to accomplish.

I can see it now.  People changing their names to the names of retiring politicians and being paid by authentic candidates to enter races just so they can dilute the vote thereby making it easier for the other party’s candidate to win in the primary.

What a great system

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Coming To An Election Near You: Faux Politiciens

3 Comments

• At June 13, 2010, Martin Hash martinhash.com wrote:

  "Top 2" is now the law in California. As goes California, so goes the nation...

• At June 13, 2010, John democracyforvancouver.org wrote:

  It is notable that the top 2 system in California does not allow political parties to nominate a candidate, something that is screwing up the WA State process.

  The "top 2" system is great provided there are no political parties to mess things up. Make it illegal for a candidate to declare a party affiliation. May the best person win. So far my experience of how it is working in the real world is that it is limiting rather than expanding voter choices by pushing candidates to withdraw before the primary even happens. How is that a good thing?

  You are a case in point. Were it not for "top 2", I might be calling you "Senator" today.

  No system is perfect but we can do much better than this.

• At June 15, 2010, Martin Hash martinhash.com wrote:

  There's now a new political term for this: "pull an Alvin Greene."

  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12greene.html

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Now We Just Get Dumbed Down Talking Points

Investigation into violent crash ongoing, police say

Miraculously it appears all involved escaped serious injury.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Parking Lots Are Dangerous Places

Don Benton knows that cash is king too!

“Patty Murray has six million special interest dollars in the bank. To defeat her, we must consolidate our resources, and work together to put our country back on the right track. Therefore, since this campaign has never been about me, I have decided to do what is best for my country, my party, and my fellow Washingtonians: I am stepping aside to endorse Dino Rossi,” Benton said.

We should just have bidding contests rather than elections.  Whoever bids the most money gets the job.  The proceeds of the bid can go to pay down the deficit.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Big Money Wins Again – Pridemore Withdraws

3 Comments

• At June 3, 2010, Martin Hash martinhash.com wrote:

  I disagree it was about money.

  Monday last week, Craig told me that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have money literally poured into their campaign by the national party, so he only needed to win the Primary. I find that logic persuasive.

  I then asked how he was going to beat Denny? Denny, who has been at our 17th District meeting 4 times, and presumably all the other districts too. Denny, who is on full charge, exudes confidence, and has a substantial track record: business, politically, and personally.

  Craig mentioned I must not be good at math - I think he did his...

• At June 4, 2010, John d4v.org wrote:

  Somebody had to go before the primary and the convention. There is just too much risk that splitting the vote will benefit the other party and that two strong candidates battling it out will undermine the winner's chances in the general.

  The players are naturally going to gravitate to the candidate with the biggest war chest. One of the things I learned a long time ago about politics, if you do not play nice with certain people up the food chain, you get blacklisted. But it still comes back to the influence of fund raising and money as to who is told to back down.

  What happens if you don't back down? As a certain unnamed Democratic Party member likes to say, "we have very long memories".

  I understand why Craig withdrew (don't like it though and will continue to try to change the underlying reason). It is why he will continue to be a very successful politician.

• At June 4, 2010, John d4v.org wrote:

  Do not mean that Craig was told directly by anyone to withdraw. There are other ways to communicate than directly.

I know firsthand that the B&O tax as currently structured keeps small businesses from moving here. Why would a business choose to pay a tax on their gross revenue that has no relationship to their net income and is owed even if the company is losing money?

Here is some good info (click on full screen button to avoid the right side cutoff):

If you would like to gather signatures for this effort, please email me and I will hook you up with the paperwork.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

WA State Tax Reform Needed

1 Comments

• At May 29, 2010, Robert Tice wrote:

  It's a good deal. There in NOTHING worse than a B&O and sales taxes. Sales tax is recognized around the world as the worst, most regressive and harmful of almost any modern tax system. The ONLY reasonable way to tax any group is on the basis of their profit (income). I'd like to see the B&O and sales tax completely removed and totally replaced with income tax. The only better system would be on based on gross wealth, where about a 1% per annum rate could replace the entire tax structure. Remember, the top 1% own about 80% of the nation's wealth!

Specter goes down.

Democrat Mark Critz won the late Murtha’s Congressional seat.

Mitch McConnell’s doughboy, Mr Grayson, was whooped by Ron Paul’s son.  Anything that weakens McConnell is good for America.

And Bill Halter will still be battling it out with Sen. Blanche Lincoln in a runoff on June 8.  Go Bill!

Enjoy the anti-incumbent fervor.  It is about time we fired some of these yokels who are undermining everything.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Good Karma for Anita Hill and the Country today

We all believe in the virtues of hard work and self-reliance, but these days it’s a fantasy to think that anyone but the mega-wealthy will not, sooner or later, depend on help from others to pay medical bills. And that’s true no matter how hard you work, how much you love America, or how diligently you take care of yourself. The cost of medical care has so skyrocketed that breaking an arm or leg could cost as much as a new car. And if you get cancer or heart disease — which can happen even to people who live healthy lifestyles — forget about it. The disease will not only clean you out; it will leave a whopping debt for your survivors to pay.

And the truth is, we all pay for other peoples’ health care whether we know it or not. When people can’t pay their medical bills, the cost of their health care gets added to everyone else’s bills and insurance premiums. When poor people use emergency rooms as a doctor of last resort, their care is not “free.” You pay for it.

Another common fantasy about medical care is that the “free market” provides incentives for medical companies to develop innovative new drugs and treatments for disease without government subsidy. It’s true that private enterprise is very good at developing profitable health care products. But not all medical care can be made profitable

For years, the U.S. government has been funding medical research that the big private companies don’t want to do because there is too much cost for the potential profit. This is especially true for diseases that are rare and expensive to treat. An example of a recent advance made possible by government grants include new guidelines for malignant pleural mesothelioma treatment developed by Memorial Sloan-Kettering mesothelioma researchers. Another is a blood screening test for mesothelioma developed by thoracic surgeon Dr. Harvey Pass. The health reform act provides for more dollars for such research, from which even many of the tea party protesters will benefit.

The biggest fantasy of all was that people who had insurance didn’t have to worry about health care costs. But the fact is that in recent years millions of Americans have been bankrupted by medical costs, and three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance. And yes, insurance companies even dumped hard-working, law-abiding patriots. But the health care reform act will put an end to that, and now America’s hard-working, law-abiding patriots are more financially secure, whether they like it or not.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Health Care Reform Will Help Everybody