Ad Infinitum

The Wounded Middle Class

2009-05-09T09:10:00.000-07:00

There is no denying now, especially with the current state of our economy, that the middle class of the United States has been hurting financially. The amount of foreclosures and bankruptcy reports should act as testaments to such a claim. In fact, an attack on the middle class has existed for quite sometime now. Therefore, the sole purpose of this post is to provide information on how the middle class has been attacked by several previous administrations and to suggest a resolution to our current problem. Also, as a conclusion, this post will layout what Obama has done—or will do—for the devastated middle class.

From 1940 to 1980, almost thirty five percent of working people were unionized and received a living wage, health insurance and pension benefits. Nearly seventy percent of the workforce could raise a family back then only from a single paycheck. People who were disabled knew that they could live on Social Security payments and the elderly were able to retire peacefully. The gap between the rich and poor gradually shrunk. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. The middle class is working long hours for a low wage. In other words, the minimum wage is not a living wage. Workers are now expected to pay for their own health insurance and their own retirement. Pensions are disappearing and there are continued talks of privatizing Social Security. All of this is happening because we currently live in a world where corporate CEO’s place profits before people. Corporate CEO’s have handed American jobs to foreign countries under free trade agreements in return for cheap labor. The wealthiest elite have great control in America. America is a country founded on personal freedom and economic opportunity for all, and to be considered otherwise is undemocratic. In America, economic power should be vested in the middle; however, throughout the past three decades, three conservative Republicans, one conservative Democrat and several self-interested politicians made sure that economic power would remain in the realm of the privileged. The conservatives of today’s world have made it their mantra to create a corporate kingdom that would only serve the needs of billionaire CEO’s who have little or no allegiance to the USA, its citizens, or the concept of democracy. This is how the middle class is being attacked and how democracy loses its ideological function in America.

A middle class will always work to create a democracy. Thomas Jefferson tried his best to advocate this concept. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood the importance of a middle class in a democratic nation. FDR was responsible for creating a strong and vibrant middle class through his New Deal coalition. However, after 1981, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. have attacked the middle class by favoring and accepting policies that have helped place millions of dollars in the pockets of the wealthiest elite of the country. For nearly three decades the middle class has been abused by conservative economic policies and it is time that the people of America resurrect the middle class from its deathbed. An immediate return to New Deal liberal programs, as well as a government—whose soul purpose is to promote the general welfare of society—that can reset the rules of the game of business through the implementation of rational tariffs and antitrust laws, will help restore the middle class and democracy in America.

There are several definitions that are used to define the term “middle class.” Even so, only one is needed to understand the concept. People who are defined as being middle class are those who are considered intermediate between the classes of higher and lower social rank or standing. Middle class people are characterized as being average working people, neither rich nor poor but fully literate and well informed about politics and international affairs. A middle class stimulates the economy because they make up the majority of the consumers in America. Therefore, a healthy and vibrant middle class is important. An attack on the middle class is an attack on the economy as well. The U.S. has witnessed a strong middle class during the 1930’s, when FDR was President. With his New Deal movement, FDR was responsible for creating the Golden Age of the middle class that started from 1940 and lasted up until 1980. FDR, along with the Founding Fathers of America, understood that a middle class and a democracy go hand in hand.

Like a DNA strand, democracy and a middle class are inextricably intertwined. In other words, there cannot be one without the other. Our Founders “created a form of government where We the People rule. They declared that all people, and not just the elite, have the right to “life, liberty, and [happiness]. They believed that democracy and a middle class were the “natural state of man.”’ (Hartmann, 7) A democracy requires that its citizens are able to achieve the American Dream. A citizen should have a well-paying job, health insurance, Social Security, and pension benefits to enjoy a peaceful and secure life. Democracy requires an educated middle class that can achieve success and be able to support their families. Also, a democracy depends on the people of America, particularly the middle class, to play the referee in the game of big business and to protect labor and the public good. However, with the conditions we live in today, the American Dream is truly just a dream. The middle class is now threatened by the CEO’s of major corporations who reap the benefits of their workers and look abroad in foreign countries for cheap labor. Thom Hartmann, a bestselling author and talk radio host, claims that without a dynamic middle class, “democracy cannot exist; instead, it becomes a caricature of itself. There are leaders and elections and all the forms, but they’re only for show. The game is now rigged.” (Hartmann, 10) An attack on the middle class and on democracy occurred in 1981, the same time Ronald Reagan became the President of the United States.

Before Reagan came into office, life in America was completely different. Health care was given to nearly all working Americans, unions were stronger than ever, people had free time after work, and industrialists respected and cared for their workers well-being. All of this was reflected in the income differential. In 1979, “the average CEO earned thirty times his average employees’ wage.” (Economic Policy Institute) Life for the middle class was pleasant and democracy was at work; however, all of this changed when Reagan’s policies favored the plutocrats of America. Reagan introduced trickle-down economics, or supply-side economics, which transformed society so that the wealthy can receive more money in order to use that money to build more factories and hire more people. Thus, the money would “trickle down” to the workers. In order to make this work, Reagan slashed top marginal income tax rates on millionaires and billionaires from 70 percent to 50 percent. (Hartmann, 17) By doing this, Reagan dropped the United States into the greatest debt ever during those times. Even though trickle-down economics did provide several jobs, most of them were in foreign countries. The wealthy did not invest the money they saved from Reagan’s tax cuts in the creation of factories. Instead, they invested abroad in foreign countries where labor was cheaper. CEO’s moved their corporations to foreign areas where assembling their manufactured good was cheaper than doing it at home. This economical strategy is called outsourcing.

Outsourcing and downsizing—the concept of mass layoffs to boost a CEO’s bonus —were not introduced in America’s vocabulary before Reagan took office. Many progressive analysts and conservatives believe that Reagan’s soul purpose was to attack the middle class. Mark Ames, a writer for The Exile, wrote:

"Reagan was put in power with the express purpose of destroying the middle class and ending any hope that the sons and daughters of the poor might rise to the middle class through education and hard work. The destruction of the middle class is his real and lasting legacy." (EPI)

Reagan also deregulated the health-care industry, which in turn made it impossible for the middle class to afford health insurance. Hospitals were then interested in profits, so they raised their rates. Drug companies could also raise their prices as high as they wanted, since they bought off their competitors with the help of Reaganomics. Pharmaceutical companies are now the most profitable businesses in the United States. (Hartmann, 61) By deregulating domestic markets and by shrinking the government, Reagan, whether he wanted to or not, attacked the middle class.

George H.W. Bush was also responsible for continuing the attack on the middle class. Bush Sr. pushed for fast-track trade authority for the president, which allows the president to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. (wiki) Even though Bush Sr. admonished Reagan’s supply-side economics and referred to Reagan’s tax proposals as “voodoo economics” in 1980, he was highly criticized in 1988 for supporting conservatives who were willing to continue the Reagan revolution. Bush Sr. was seen as a failure in this regard. (wiki) In addition, his administration held excessive discussions with Canada and Mexico in forming the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has completely damaged the middle class.

It was former President Bill Clinton, considered by many a conservative Democrat, who signed NAFTA, thereby causing a harmful blow toward the middle class of America. NAFTA, according to Jorge Castaneda, is “an accord among magnates and potentates: an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies.” (Faux, 2) With NAFTA, the transnational elite possess the power of governing their land. Citizens in America are now competing with other people in Canada and Mexico for jobs. Jeff Faux, president of the Economic Policy Institute, states in his book: “Thanks to NAFTA, we now have a domestic economy that spans the continent and includes Canada and Mexico, two other sovereign countries whose economies are commonly linked to ours.” (Faux, 6) This agreement has lowered wages for American workers and has created record trade deficits. Clinton also signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which has been replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), further reducing the power of the people to regulate business and media. When Clinton decided to enter the U.S. into the WTO, tariffs and trade restrictions were eliminated thus allowing multinational corporations, instead of sovereign nations, to write the rules of international business. (Hartmann, 20) Even though Clinton had done so much for the middle class during his presidency, his decision to sign NAFTA and the GATT has and is currently affecting the middle class.

Middle class people are suffering from policies created years ago by their presidential leaders; the same leaders who claimed to understand the importance of a middle class in a democratic country. George W. Bush, our previous president, has also contributed to the attack against the middle class. For instance, during his first term, Bush Jr. implemented three tax cuts, which were claimed by his conservative specialists to increase economic recovery and job creation. However, his opposition pointed out that the creation of jobs has failed to materialize. The tax cuts were argued to have favored the wealthy and special interests. (wiki) Opposition has pointed out that the tax cuts have placed the United States into a historic debt. Bush’s bill is set for more than $4,000 billion, on top of Reagan’s and Bush Sr.’s $3 trillion debt (approximate numbers). (Hartmann, 20) Also, Bush has signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a free trade agreement similar to NAFTA, which encompasses the U.S. and certain Central American countries. Public Citizen, an advocacy group created by Ralph Nader, opposes this agreement on the grounds that CAFTA is another failed “neoliberal” model as was NAFTA. Public Citizen states that CAFTA serves to “push ahead the corporate globalization model that has caused the 'race to the bottom' in labor and environmental standards and promotes privatization and deregulation of key public services.” (Public Citizen Website and Wiki) Bush Jr. has made the same mistake Clinton committed during his presidency, thus intensifying the blow toward the devastated middle class.

In addition, Bush was able to attack the one institution that the middle class in America needs in order to thrive—education. Through his No Child Left Behind Act, Bush made it possible for 36 percent of California’s schools to lose government funding. (Hartmann, 56) Under the act, Bush listed thirty-seven ways a school could fail in meeting certain new standards that were also listed in the new law. Schools that made the list lost their government funding. In other words, the schools that needed the most funding got the least. The act has closed several schools throughout America and has sought out to do the opposite of what it claims in its title. The Bush administration also wanted to privatize K-12 education, along with Social Security.

Bush’s attack on the middle class does not stop there. Ever since Alan Greenspan decided to throw interest rates into negative territory to help George W. Bush get reelected in 2003-2004, the American public has been in great debt. Many Americans “with adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgages are being wiped out as interest rates rise back up into normal territory.” (Hartmann, 20) In fact, MSNBC.com has reported that “Nationwide, 649,917 homes received at least one foreclosure-related filing in the first three months of the year, up 112 percent from 306,722 during the same period last year.” (MSNBC.com) If anybody believes that America is economically stable and secure, they have to reconsider. America’s democracy and economy is threatened because there has been an attack on the middle class for nearly three decades. Our government has been sold to the CEO’s of wealthy corporations who call the shots. The middle class cannot even find help from their own senators and representatives because the majority of both have given into the rewards that big business offers.

Most Republicans and Democrats that reside in the Congressional branch of the United States and several politicians have sold out to corporate and wealthy interests. The conservatives who have vowed to support wealthy corporations—or the ‘cons’ as described by Hartmann—have taken over the Republican Party and American politics. Many Republicans are more interested in the interests of major corporations, rather than the needs of the people they represent. For instance, in 2005, Maryland lawmakers passed a bill that forced companies “with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health care benefits—or put the money directly into the state’s health program for the poor.” (Sirota, 166) This bill was targeted for Wal-Mart, which provides a minimal amount of benefits for their employees. Maryland’s governor Bob Ehrlich (R) held a meeting with Wal-Mart’s top executives and vetoed the bill. The reason behind his decision to veto was that Wal-Mart provided Ehrlich’s political campaign with financial contributions. (Sirota) So, instead of doing what was right for the employees of Maryland, Ehrlich decided to veto the bill for his benefit.

Surprisingly, the Democratic Party also swung to the right. As Hartmann states, “Democrats were caught in the awkward position of needing to embrace the same corporate donors as the con-led Republicans, although they weren’t anywhere near as successful as the cons because they hadn’t (and haven’t) so fully sold out to corporate interests.” (Hartmann, 203) Even though some Democrats do oppose Bush and his policies, other “middle of the road” Democrats have converted. For instance, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been funded by corporations such as Enron, Texaco, and Philip Morris. (Sirota, 288) Not surprisingly, this was the group that encouraged Democrats to embrace corporate-written trade deals. (Sirota, 289) Jeff Faux shares a similar view on this matter. He believes that America’s bi-partisan government favors the privileged, while neglecting the rest of us to an unregulated global market. (Faux, 3) Also, Lou Dobbs from CNN agrees that Congress and the will of the people lie on separate tracks. He states: “When our representatives are actually in session, they're constantly at odds with the will of the people.” (Dobbs) Overall, even our own politicians are embracing big businesses, thus aggrandizing the attack on the middle class and democracy.

So how do we fix this problem that has nearly destroyed the vitality of the middle class and the heart of a democracy? There are many critics who have mentioned the problems of our current society and have contributed ideas on how to salvage the economy. However, there have not been a lot of suggestions on how to revive a middle class. Many political analysts have discussed the threats that have devastated the middle class, the negative and positive aspects of our economy, and the credibility of America as a democratic nation. This is a good thing, but America has to figure out a way to reestablish a powerful middle class; because, the democracy and the economy of this country can only be saved through a strong and vibrant middle class. This post does offer a solution to the problem. We can resurrect the middle class by returning to those programs that once exemplified the New Deal movement created by FDR. Also, government “interference” by setting the rules of business through the use of tariffs, trade policies and antitrust acts is needed to bring back the middle class. FDR was able to do it and we can do it again.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to lift a country out of the Great Depression and create a strong economy with a dynamic middle class through his New Deal programs. The New Deal created government services that protected the middle class, the seniors, the sick, the children, and the low-income people. This sounds like something we require now! FDR was able to put money in our pockets through progressive taxation, social security, fair labor laws, the regulation of business, and the vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws. FDR issued the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set a minimum wage, and the National Labor Relations Act, which protected most workers rights through the development of labor unions and gave workers the right to strike. (wiki) FDR furthered the cause of public education through the GI bill. Also, almost every worker received health insurance and pension benefits. During WWII, FDR passed a progressive income tax that barely touched the working class and middle class but took a great percentage of income from those individuals who earned more than two million a year in today’s dollars. (Hartmann, 45) This percentage remained high up until Reagan took over the White House. Progressive taxes did not take money from the people allowing the middle class to spend it on goods that would stimulate the economy and consumer demand. Also, FDR made it possible for people to enjoy the fruits of their labor through the creation of Social Security, a government-run insurance program.

Some critics say that World War II was the stimulus that took America out of the Depression. However, spending money on military equipment, like what Bush Jr. did, does not stimulate the economy. In fact, building roads, bridges, public facilities, domestic consumer industries, etc. stimulates the economy more because money flows within the economy. For instance, FDR created the Public Works Administration (PWA) which hired skilled construction workers to build the Triborough Bridge in New York City, which is now called the Robert F. Kennedy bridge. This program, created by the government, paid its workers a living wage, which in turn helped stimulate the economy. To sum it up, Roosevelt’s “economic stimulus programs put money in the pockets of the people, and their purchases created consumer demand, which led entrepreneurs to start businesses to meet that demand, which meant they had to hire workers, who were well paid because 35 percent of America was unionized.” (Hartmann, 47) FDR acted to control the game of business. Roosevelt protected the middle class by regulating the stock market, breaking large electrical conglomerates, ensuring people to place their savings in banks, and fighting for an expansion of antitrust legislation. (Hartmann, 47) FDR campaigned relentlessly on a platform of government involvement in the marketplace, also referred to as Keynesian economics, to restore both democracy and the middle class.

Economic New Deal liberalism can save the middle class and democracy in contemporary America. Bush has to pass a progressive income tax cut. Progressive taxation has a long history that dates back to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson once wrote that “taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.” (Hartmann, 47) Instead of passing tax cuts that favor the wealthy of this country, Bush should consider progressive taxation to put money back in the pockets of the middle class and low-income people. Progressive taxation may also decrease Bush’s, and now Obama’s, debt. Restoring and reforming the estate tax is also a good idea. An estate tax is definitely needed in a time where poverty and budget deficits continue to rise. A 2002 poll showed that Americans strongly suggest that the estate tax should be reformed rather than repealed. (Sirota, 48) We can use these taxes to help pay pack the Social Security system.

Americans should fight for a single-player national health care system and oppose any talks of privatizing Social Security. More people are uninsured or underinsured in America now more than ever. If an injury or accident occurs, a person can go bankrupt from trying to pay the medical bills. Health care is a right that every individual should have. Bernie Sanders, currently an independent senator of Vermont, wrote a lengthy document to the Speaker of the House in 2004 addressing the issues that are affecting the middle class, the corruption of big business and the problems surrounding health care. He also suggested that America needs a single-player national health care system and stated that America has turned into “a system geared toward profit-making for the insurance companies and for the pharmaceutical industry rather than providing cost-effective quality care to all of our people.” (Bernie Sanders) If health care insurance companies were regulated by the government, every American would be able to afford health care. Medical and pharmaceutical bills are so expensive because these companies are interested in profit; therefore they raise their prices and rates. This is the reason why health care insurance programs and companies should be regulated. Also, Social Security is one of the strongest pillars of the New Deal movement and should not be privatized or co-opted. Social Security continues to provide money for the disabled and assures that Americans will have savings for retirement.

Most importantly, an American cannot climb up to the middle class, if he/she receives the current minimum wage. The current federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $6.55, which is not a living wage. (U.S. Department of Labor) Many middle class people have been working an average of eighty hours per week and a majority of them have some difficulty in paying their bills. Conservatives have argued that if the minimum wage increases, several small businesses will go under and people will lose jobs. However, this is not true and a good example is when Santa Fe, New Mexico raised its minimum wage to $9.50. A report shows that when the increase occurred, more than one thousand jobs were added to the work force and the unemployment rate decreased. (Hartmann, 187) America has the money to make this happen, but it is a matter of how the money is used. Also, conservatives are wrong when they claim that we have to choose between low prices or high wages. If the prices on products did increase, the people of America would be able to purchase those products because their wages would have increased as well. A union study showed that a one cent increase on the price of a pair of socks would increase an employee’s income by $1,800 annually. This study used Wal-Mart as their example. Overall, the reality of this is that an increase in the minimum wage would sprout an increase in prices, but also an increase in employment and consumer demand. Our economy has been handing money to the corporations it cherishes, rather than to the people who make the economy work. So, the U.S. has to transform the minimum wage into a living wage in order to rebuild the middle class. FDR did it and we can do it again.

America also needs stronger and better regulated unions. A union provides a person with the leverage to demand benefits in his/her workplace. Hartmann states that “unions are designed to give workers a voice in decisions that affect their jobs . . . [and] unions create a middle class by allowing you and me to ask for wages and the benefits we need to become or remain middle class.” (Hartmann, 189) Unions have a democratic quality in that they allow workers to have a say in his/her workplace. Conservatives have been bashing unions for a long time now, and we must not let them win. Unions were created for a reason and that is to protect the worker of America. Overall, unions help us fight for a living wage and bring democracy to America. Also, unions help promote a middle class. FDR knew that and so should we.

Most importantly, we need a government that can set the rules of business through the use of rational tariffs, trade policies and antitrust laws. America’s trade deficit is constantly increasing. In 2005, we imported $700 billion more in goods than we exported. (Hartmann, 21) The deficit has been increasing ever since then. Our involvement in NAFTA and the WTO has only made things worse as well. After airplanes, our number one export is agricultural products, which is very disappointing. Other countries take our dollars we gave them for the things we bought and they do not want to buy anything back from us because we no longer manufacture goods. Instead, they put their money to good use. They buy “our remaining manufacturing companies, our ports, our banks, our forests, our landmark buildings and our real estate.” (Hartmann, 21) For example, Chrysler, John Hancock Insurance, Wells Fargo Bank, and the Helmsley Building in New York are all gone. Also, America’s sound industry is almost entirely foreign owned. Conservatives with their “free” trade policies have sold off America to the highest bidder and claim that this is a good thing. They say that foreign owned companies create American jobs; however, foreign owned industries in America operate for a purpose to take their profits back home. On the other hand, American industries use their profits to invest within the country therefore recycling money throughout the economy as it gets taxed every time. These taxes are later used to build roads, bridges, other domestic consumer factories etc. Overall, the profits circulate throughout our economy creating more jobs, consumer demand, and higher wages. We must not stand by and watch our nation serve the needs and interests of an elite group of wealthy CEO’s.

Americans must also stay away from conservatives who believe that a middle class will blossom under a market freed from government restrictions. A marketplace cannot exist without government because the government sets the rules of business. Also, conservatives who want a “small government” really want a different government—one that serves the wealthy. In fact, a “conservative government” is not a “smaller government.” For instance, under George W. Bush “inflation-adjusted government spending is as high as it was during World War II, at almost twenty thousand per person per year.” (Hartmann, 33) What conservatives really want is a smaller government so they can step in and privatize previous governmental function in order to make a profit from things that used to be nonprofit. We cannot allow corporations to decide how much to pay for labor, and when, how and where to trade. We also have to stay away from conservatives who say that “free” trade creates better-paying American jobs. This is a lie. For instance, “free” trade deals like the China Pact in 2000 has lowered Ohio’s real median wage for three consecutive years. (Sirota, 63) Overall, “trade deals that allow companies to freely search the world for the cheapest labor have driven down Americans’ wages.” (Sirota, 67) This is why we need a government that is free from the control of corporate CEO’s and greedy politicians. We need a government that can regulate the game of business through rational tariffs and antitrust laws.

Free-traders view tariffs as a harmful interference with the laws of a free market, and if anyone reintroduces the concept of imposing tariffs, they are accused of being a protectionist. However, the outsourcing of American jobs and “free” trade deals such as NAFTA and the WTO, which its purpose is to abolish all trade restrictions, has called forth the desperate need for tariffs. Therefore, rational tariffs have to be implemented by our government to construct “financial barriers against companies who try to reap a financial reward for eliminating U.S. jobs and exploiting desperate, low wage workers in developing countries.” (Sirota, 58) What this post means by “rational” are those tariffs that repeal trade pacts that do not have wage protections. Throughout its history the U.S. has issued several tariffs and the most recent, the steel tariff of 2002, proved to be a success. Ever since the tariff was lifted due to complaints from the WTO, conservatives and foreign members of the free market, steel prices began to rise. This tariff law also helped several workers and industries in the states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. (wiki) With the conditions of today’s market, as Faux puts it, “protectionism may well become the policy of necessity.” (Faux, 199)

Tariffs are needed in order to protect middle class people from working long hours to compete with slave labor. If the labor of a manufactured product in America costs $10 and in China $1, then a $9 tariff, or less, should be imposed when it is being imported. What sense would it make for a U.S. business to relocate in China for cheap labor if the good being made will face a tariff. Even though tariffs will encounter opposition from the “free” market, including the WTO, their existence in the U.S. economy is necessary. Overall, our government can set the rules of business in such a way that working people can receive a living wage and that domestic industries can be protected from foreign competition. All this can be done through the implementation of tariffs and antitrust acts.

Antitrust acts have been known to regulate corporations by prohibiting unfair business practices. In fact, the purpose of the various antitrust acts and laws is “to ensure that the U.S. economy can reach equilibrium without being restrained, hampered, or obstructed by the undue influence of large companies or groups of companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior.” For example, the Sherman Antitrust of 1890 was the first United States Antitrust law to limit illegal cartels and monopolies. These acts protect the middle class from the effects cause by power hungry multinational corporations. Thus, more are needed in our time.

With a call for protectionist policies and a return to the tenets of the New Deal Movement, one has to wonder whether our current president, Barack Obama, is leading toward the right direction in helping to lessen the burden that has been placed on the middle class since the Reagan years. Obama has created a task force with Vice President Biden in charge which is primarily established to assist the middle class in economically troubling times like these. Obama has also called for a $800 billion-plus economic stimulus plan that will help the middle class. Here is what Obama has done so far:

Taxes: President Barack Obama has proposed to overhaul the tax code in order to lower taxes for the poor and the middle class. His plan will mean approximately $80 billion in tax cuts. Plus, Obama and Biden have promised to cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families, and to eliminate income taxes for seniors making les than $50,000 a year. (BarackObama.com)

Outsourcing (Free Trade): Just recently Obama overhauled a tax code which allows companies to pay less tax by creating a job in India than if you create one in the United States. Many have found this to be counterproductive, however, it is Obama’s attempt to discourage outsourcing to other countries, which has been hurting the middle class for quite sometime now. (NYT)

Antitrust Acts and Laws: “In his September 2007 statement to the American Antitrust Institute (AAI), President-elect Obama noted that “antitrust is the American way to make capitalism work for consumers.”’ In addition Barack Obama campaigned for “Reinvigorating antitrust enforcement by stepping up review of merger activity and taking effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumers, while quickly clearing those that will not.” (Enotes)

Jobs: The creation of new jobs is pretty much the crux of the stimulus package. Currently, with unemployment rising, Obama and Biden have found new and innovative work opportunities for middle class families. For example, President Obama last week announced “more than $20 billion for investment in a cleaner, greener economy, including $500 million for green job training.” (Environment News Service)

Health Care: Back in the beginning of 2008, Obama called for a universal health care system. He finds that every citizen should be able to receive health care no matter what condition our economy is in. In his budget, “Obama has already proposed an additional $634 billion—nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars—in health care spending over the next few years.” (Reason Online)

Labor Unions: During the beginning of his term, Obama signed executive orders aimed at strengthening labor unions. He was also quoted as saying “I don’t see organized labor as part of the problem. To me, it’s part of the solution.” However, there has been some opposition to his policies toward labor unions as of late. Obama has recently rescinded a rule that requires Labor Unions to disclose receipts of expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets. This is seen by a few as an attack to the common worker. Even so, Obama is pro-union. (The Wall Street Journal)

With all of these policies under the new administration coming into play, it seems as though most of Obama’s actions seem to resemble those of FDR. However, we must be aware that the first few years of a new President’s career is mostly theater, thus we have to wait to see if Obama is truly adamant in what he says about the middle class. For now, Obama seems to be helping the middle class, and deviating away from those hurtful policies practiced and created by previous administrations. I am for Obama, but I do not care to be biased. I understand that there are several people who oppose the things he has done for the middle class stating that its counter productive or socialist, but what I do care for is for some protection for the middle class. And, Obama is promising just that. Will we see a second Golden Age for the middle class in the future? Only time will tell I guess.

Sources:

1) Hartmann, Thom. Screwed The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It (BK Currents). New York: Berrett-Koehler, 2007.
2) "CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows." Economic Policy Institute. 09 May 2009 <http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/>.
3) "Fast track (trade) -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 09 May 2009 . <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)>.
4) "George H. W. Bush -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 09 May 2009 .<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W,_Bush>.
5) Faux, Jeff. The Global Class War How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back. New York: Wiley, 2006.
6) Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 09 May 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_ administration>.
7) "Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 09 May 2009 . <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFTA>.
8) "Home foreclosure rate continues ugly climb - Real estate- msnbc.com." Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com. 09 May 2009 .<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24359826/>.
9) Sirota, David. Hostile takeover how big money & corruption conquered our government--and how we take it back. New York: Three Rivers P, 2007.
10) "CNN's Lou Dobbs Beats Election War Drums for Bigger Government." Welcome to the Business & Media Institute. 09 May 2009 .<http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061019142152.aspx>.
11) "National Labor Relations Act -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 09 May 2009 .<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRA>.
12) "DemConWatch:: Universal Health Care, Thank You Bernie Sanders." DemConWatch. 09 May 2009 . <http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/1239/universal-health-care-thank-you-bernie-sanders>.
13) "U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Wages - Minimum Wage." The U.S. Department of Labor Home Page. 09 May 2009 .<http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm>.
14) "2002 United States steel tariff -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 09 May 2009 .<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_tariff>.
15) "| Economy." Organizing for America | BarackObama.com. 09 May 2009 . ttp://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/>.
16) "The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 09 May 2009 . <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/global/06tax.html?em>.
17) "President Obama's Centrist Antitrust Enforcement." Law.com - Legal News, Legal Technology, In-House Counsel, Small Firms. 09 May 2009 . <http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202426120827>.
18) "Green Jobs Key to Obama Administration's Middle Class Task Force." Environment News Service. 09 May 2009 . <http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2009/2009-02-27-01.asp>
19) "Obama's Health Care Quackery: Countries with universal health coverage are economically worse off than the U.S. -." Reason Magazine. 09 May 2009 . <http://www.reason.com/news/show/133344.html>.
20) "Obama Tries to Stop Union Disclosure - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com. 09 May 2009 . <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124157604375290453.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>.

Eminem's New Single is finally here!

2009-04-07T08:58:00.000-07:00

Eminem's highly anticipated single, "We Made You," has finally presented itself with great controversy over its lyrical content. The single was launched on MTV's AMTV channel at around 6 a.m. today. The song targets Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Aniston, John Mayer, Kim Kardashian, Brett Michaels, Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan, her freind and mate Sam, Ellen Degeneres and her lover, Amy Winehouse, Star Trek, Rain Man, Transformers, Guitar Hero, Sarah Palin, and probably more.

The lyrical quality of the song is superb. Eminem truly has mastered the rap game as he finds new and complex words to rhyme and combine in a sentence. He is a lyrical genius that no other rapper can contest with.

Check out the video here:

The single is of course supposed to be a parody or a mocking of reality as were his other singles, such as "Just Lose it," "My name is," and "Without Me." Usually, Eminem's singles are not good indicators of what the quality of his album is going to be like. Therefore, I believe we should just enjoy the song and the humor it contains. Also, all those haters should just shut up!

Liverpool is set to regain the no.1 spot

2009-03-23T08:38:00.000-07:00

After several weeks of a Manchester United winning streak, Fulham was able to put the Red Devils back in their place. For a long time now, the players over at Manchester United have thought that their style of soccer was untouchable and unbeatable. Little did they know that Fulham, the 9th seated team in the Barclay's Premiership, was going to beat them 2-0. This is a great day for Man. U. haters because it confirms that the Red Devils are nowhere near a level of perfection. Ronaldo, Rooney, Berbatov, Tevez, and Giggs can continue to think that they live in an ivory tower or on cloud nine, but they should be weary of the more dedicated and motivated teams in the league.

Fulham v Manchester United

Manchester's defeat is also good news for Liverpool fans. Even though Man. U. has a game in hand, Liverpool remains one point behind the Red Devils with their 5-0 win this week against Aston Villa. This difference will create excitement and great levels of competitiveness in the remaining games.

Liverpool v Aston Villa

Unfortunately Chelsea could not use Man. United's loss to their advantage as they lost their recent game to the Tottenham Hotspurs. Their loss leaves them behind Liverpool.

Now with Chelsea out of the picture, I hope Liverpool can find the strength to surpass Manchester United in the Premiership. I also hope an English team wins the Champion's league this year.

Stem Celll for Back Surgery

2009-03-10T11:28:00.000-07:00

On Monday, President Obama decided to expand embryonic stem cell research. FINALLY! It has long overdue since the past eight years. Thank you former President Bush.

For those that are not familiar with stem cell research, allow me to explain the process and its benefits. Stem cells are found in most multi-cellular organism and have the ability to renew themselves through mitotic cell division. Doctors believe that stem cells have the potential to change the treatment to human disease for the better. In fact, many doctors and scientists believe that stem cells can help with Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, leukemia, muscle damage, multiple sclerosis, and spinal diseases and disorders.

Embryonic cells, on the other hand, are derived from embryos, and are not taken from embryos already developed in a woman's body. If these were redirected in a specific way, scientists could use them to treat diseases more effectively than regular stem cells. Hopefully with the lifting of the ban, things will change.

This means that hopefully in a few more years doctors may find a way to successfully treat herniated discs. I have been suffering from a herniated disc for about three years now and the pain is debilitating. What bothers me the most is the opposition stem cell research faced from religious conservatives. Do they know how much pain I have been experiencing? How such constant pain can change a man? If only people knew than they might understand. Similar to how in 24 the Senator does not understand why Jack Bauer sees torture as a means to a greater end.

An article released before Obama took office states that stem cells are already being used and implanted on discs. Here is the link. Here is what article has to say:

"Doctor Kleiner said a disc loses its ability to be a shock absorber after surgery because it no longer produces a spongy substance that can hold water.

"The stem cells should take on the properties of the cells within the disc and ultimately improve the hydration of the disc - and prevent the progression of degeneration," Kleiner said."

I cannot wait to give it a couple of more years to see what advancements they are going to produce. I hope science can save my back because so far nothing has.

Republican Trash Talk or Democratic Connivery? The Democratic Response and the Verdict

2009-03-03T10:09:00.000-08:00

During the time all of these accusations were thrown around, the Obama campaign did everything they could to counter the Republican argument. In fact, no one in Obama’s campaign seemed to have questioned the amount, and many had taken pride in the amount they had accumulated. For instance, Bill Burton, an Obama spokesperson at the time stated: “Our campaign has shattered fund-raising records with donations from more than 2.5 million Americans. We have gone above and beyond the transparency requirements.” Burton assured the press that no campaign is completely protected from Internet-fraud, and confirms that Obama’s campaign will continue to examine any donation that seems capable of breaking a campaign finance law.

The Obama campaign has also seemed to have been willing to fix any wrongdoing that may have been caused by their website. For instance, the Obama campaign was accused, again, of retrieving funds from three brothers in Gaza. The story goes as follows: Three brothers from Palestine, considered of being associated to the Hamas group, have provided the Obama campaign with $33,500 in exchange for several Obama T-Shirts. The Edwan brothers, as they are called, love Obama, and wanted to sell the T-Shirts in Gaza to retrieve a profit. The Obama campaign has yet to make a reimbursement, even when they alleged they will. Pamela Gellar, who has done extensive research on the matter, writes this in her op-ed article:

" The Palestinians allegedly claimed “they were American citizens,” so said Obama's people. They listed their address zip code 972 (ironically the area code for Israel) and they input “GA,” the state abbreviation for Georgia. They actually lived in a Hamas controlled refugee camp. So, if Obama's people thought it was “Georgia,” why did they ship the tee shirts to the correct address in Gaza? Shipping overseas to a Gaza refugee camp is vastly different than the state next door."

The Obama campaign was willing to give the funds back. However, according to the WorldNetDaily (WND) interview with the Edwan brothers, the donation has not been given back.

Even though the Democrats were responsive and willing to refund any type of illegal contribution, we, as consumers and readers, must be aware of the Republican smear campaign that has been going on since the advent of the 2008 election. Here are some reasons why I think this whole incident is simply another version of Republican trash-talk:

1) Aaron Klein was the reporter who interviewed the Edwan brothers in Gaza, and he is viewed by his peers and by many others as being a conservative anti-Obama reporter who works for the right-wing WorldNetDaily.

2) Also, the allegations were reported the same time Senator John McCain let Sarah Palin off her leash. Palin’s unsupported accusations of Barack Obama made the Democrats question whether or not the Republican’s claim was the latest of a smear campaign against Obama.

3) There are no articles that claim the FEC is actually investigating the Obama campaign. The campaign has yet to been charged for retrieving illegal contributions and foreign funds. Also, it has been several months since these allegations surfaced and no one has been penalized for a wrongdoing.

4) The sources are questionable. For example, Kenneth R. Timmerman, according to his bio on wikipedia, is a Republican reporter who has been accused of yellow journalism, and who has been accused of stoking conflict with Iran. Also, Michael Isikoff is an investigative journalist who works with Newsweek. According to his bio, he loves breaking sensational news. In fact, he was the first one to reveal Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky to his executives at Newsweek. I believe that all investigative journalists search hard enough for the news that will satisfy their purpose or story. Other investigative journalists that have reported on this incident were Sarah Cohen and Matthew Mosk from the Washington Post. The Washington Post has been viewed as a pro-Republican newspaper.

5) Finally, everyone should not believe what is written on blogs. Even this one! For instance, Pamela Geller's information seemed as though it came from a blog and was posted on American Thinker. And, if you look at the sources from where I retrieved my information, most of them are from blog sites. The reason why I was constricted to these sites was the fact that there was not a lot of information from more valid and serious sources on this topic. This also plays as another factor on why I believe the Republican argument against Obama is weak.

The verdict is simple and clear: Republicans are trash talkers and we see this once again in their attempt to accuse Obama of retrieving illegal and foreign funds. And, this example serves Dr. Levinson's theory, or fact, well that Republicans are MEAN! Why isn't there much talk about Obama's supposed wrongdoings now? Oh that's right. There is no need to bring it up now because Republicans lost. Anyway, let us say everything that reporters and Republicans stated in their articles were true. Is it that bad if Democrats finally decided to play dirty? Its about time, if they did. Republicans have been doing it for so long. I wonder if there is a Democrat version of Karl Rove out there somewhere.

The bottom line is that Republicans knew that the White House was slipping out of their grasp. With this in mind they decided to go on a rampage and trash the presidential candidate in every way possible. Maybe his Internet site did lack an AVS or maybe he did allow prepaid credit cards. The campaign will reimburse those who contributed illegally. There was no reason to escalate the situation to an extent where Republicans seemed desperate and helpless.

Sources:

1) Pamela Gellar-http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_ contributions_sil.html

2) Kenneth R. Timmerman- http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_ illegal_donors/2008/10/29/145612.html
3) WorldNetDaily- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=page.view&pageid=71651
4) Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/21/obamas_175000_donor.html
5) Wikipedia Search: Kenneth R. Timmerman- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Timmerman
6) Michael Isikoff Bio-http://www.nndb.com/people/859/000043730/

Republican Trash Talk or Democratic Connivery? What Obama Allegedly Did Wrong

2009-03-03T08:51:00.000-08:00

According to a vast amount of sources, Obama’s campaign can be accused of violating all of the aforementioned campaign finance laws (see previous blog here). According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, a journalist for Newsmax.com, “more than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign would not disclose.” In the beginning of the race, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began with $95 million after spending several million in the primary election against Hillary Clinton. The Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign, which accepted public funding, started off with $84 million. And, before Election Day, Obama’s campaign was able to raise hundreds of millions more than the McCain campaign all thanks to a number of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret. Up until now, the Obama campaign was not required by law to disclose any contribution under the $200 limit, however, “the FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less; and, only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.” The remaining $183.1 million has drawn great suspicion, since such an amount seems unlikely and questionable in nature. According to Timmerman, “it is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after BCRA.”

Furthermore, the Obama campaign, according to many investigators such as Matthew Mosk and Michael Isikoff, has not gone above and beyond the transparency requirements. This is where most believe that Obama’s campaign is at fault. Obama’s accumulation of more than $400 million owes its thanks to the Internet because nearly half of Obama’s contributions were through Internet donations. In fact, “of the $150 million Obama raised in September of 2008, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.” Newsweek says that the Obama campaign did not shield its Internet contribution page from illegal donations. An online investigator discovered that Obama’s campaign turned their website’s Address Verification System (AVS) off. The AVS service checks to see that the billing address given by the customer matches the credit card. Since Obama’s website did not contain such a protection, donations from anonymous individuals were accepted. This negligence makes it impossible to determine if one individual surpassed the $200 limit because the background information given did not have to match the credit card. Thus, Obama’s campaign was able to receive donations from individuals who may have exceeded the spending limit by using several different names and addresses. This makes it harder for the campaign to disclose and identify those contributors who gave more than $200 and to reimburse those who gave more than $4,600. Unlike Obama’s site, Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s websites used an address verification system.

In addition to disregarding an AVS, the Obama campaign is accused of accepting prepaid credit cards, which has never been done before. According to Matthew Mosk from Newsweek, “Obama’s presidential campaign allowed donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade the limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or mask a contributor’s identity.” An untraceable prepaid credit card only frustrates the FEC in determining where the money is coming from. Such an investigation would take months to complete. Campaign finance lawyers claim that “the problem with such cards is that they make it impossible to tell whether donors who have exceeded the limits and government contractors who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.”

Reporters claim that by turning off the AVS and accepting prepaid credit cards, the Obama campaign has allowed several anomalies to occur, all of which break campaign finance laws. For example, one contributor was able to identify themselves as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” Timmerman notes that “a Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.” In total, Mr. Good Will has given Obama $17,375, an amount well above the limit for a single contributor. The Obama campaign claims that they have given the amount of 330 contributions back to Mr. Good Will, but an amount of $8,950 still remains. The FEC flagged Mr. Good Will and has forced the Obama campaign to return the excess amount back to the donor.

Newsweek makes it clear in their articles on this topic that Obama’s campaign finance tactics have opened the gate for identity theft problems. Using the Mr. Good Will case, the donor supplied as his address 1015 Northwood Park Boulevard, which matches the location of the Goodwill Industry located in Austin, Texas. According to the Newsweek article, Suzanna Burmeister, the marketing director for Goodwill Industries, said “the group had no clue who the donor was and that the institution received five puzzling thank you letters from the Obama campaign for their generous contributions.” These letters forced the company to send an e-mail to the campaign to inform it of the fraudulent use of its name. In addition, several contributors have identified themselves as Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Bill Ayers. The most heard of case of identity theft due to Obama’s unprotected website is the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Montana. Mrs. Biskup turned up on Obama’s contribution list as giving a whopping $178,000, which is $175,700 more than what one person can give to a candidate in the general election. In an interview, Biskup stated that she never made those transactions, and that her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made a contribution with a different card.

The most talked about anomaly caused by the Obama campaign’s lack of security and protection for their Internet website is the concern of illegal foreign donations. The problem of not having an AVS on an Internet payment page and the acceptance of prepaid credit cards make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals have donated to the Obama campaign. However, there is proof out there that does indicate that foreigners have donated to Obama. For instance, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff was talking about this issue on MSNBC and he noted that many of the Internet contributions have come in obviously fictitious characters from many Islamic countries around the world in strange denominations less than $200, like $14.23, $56.21, and $18.98. These amounts indicate that a foreign transaction fee took place causing the few additional cents to show up in the donation. Pamela Geller from American Thinker conducted an extensive research and discovered the same exact thing. She writes that “Thousand of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents; and, we compared McCain’s donations to Obama’s and McCain’s are so clean: no cents, all even dollar amounts.”

Even when such a speculation does not warrant the claim that Obama has been receiving illegal foreign donations, more proof somehow emerges. Timmerman claims that the FEC is questioning a pool of donations they think came from overseas. The pool contains about 11,500 contributions that total $3.38 million. More than 50 of these contributions listed their “state” as “UK,” which stands for the United Kingdom. Also, Timmerman states in July and August, the Nigerian stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers that raised an estimated $900,000 in donations. The sponsors of the fundraiser claimed that the money was going to be used to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. Due to the rise of skepticism on where the money was going to be spent, the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission investigated (and still is investigating) the matter.

Sources:

1)Timmerman, Kenneth R.-http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_fundraising_illegal/ 2008/09/29/135718.html
2)Matthew Mosk- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/ 10/28/ar2008102803413_pf.html
3)Andy Sullivan- www.reuters.com/article/politicsnews/idustre4942z720081005
4)Albert N. Milliron- http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/obama-campaign-disabled-credit-verification-avs-donors
5)Michael Isikoff- http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

6)Scott Donaldson- http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021856.php

7)Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/21/obamas_175000_donor.html
8)Blog- http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/barack-hussein-obama-muslim-overseas-fundraising-scandal-illegal-foreign-internet-campaign-donations-contributions-palestinian-t-shirt-sales-michael-isikoff-newsweek-on-david-shusters-place-for-poli
9)Pamela Gellar- http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_ contributions_sil.html

Republican Trash Talk or Democratic Connivery? Introduction and Campaign Finance Laws

2009-03-03T08:28:00.000-08:00

I know what I am writing has already occurred and has probably been forgotten. However, I want to bring the topic back into discussion because it has a point to prove and should not be buried away as a forgettable memory. I know most of my followers or classmates have written about more current events. However, I believe we can view things more clearly in retrospect.

During this election process, President Barack Obama has been accused by many as using the Internet in both a good and bad way. In fact, about a decade ago, candidates did not see much use in using the Internet as a helpful tool for their campaigns. Today, Obama’s campaign—as compared to Senator John McCain’s—has come the closest to achieving the Holy Grail of politics on the Internet—converting online enthusiasm to offline action. Even so, Obama and his campaign are found guilty in the eyes of a few Republicans, Republican newspapers and websites, and gullible bloggers. The accusation is that President Obama engaged in Internet fraud during his presidential campaign. According to several reports, Obama’s campaign did not undertake the necessary security measures to shield themselves from illegal online contributions. This supposed mistake from Obama’s campaign is one that deserves further scrutiny because it presents to the political arena two possible outcomes: 1) another form of Republican trash talk; or 2) a possible attempt from Democrats to play dirty.

The best way to start this discussion is to address the most important federal laws pertaining to campaign contributions, and then to address how others think Pres. Obama’s campaign has violated these rules.

After McCain and Feingold established the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002 (BCRA), the regulation of the financing behind political campaigns became far stricter than the laws constituted by the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. For instance, under BCRA, federal law does not require campaigns to disclose any background information of those donors who have given less than $200. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each contributor, and disclose their information when their contributions pass the $200 mark. In addition, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which was created under the Federal Election Campaign Act, requires all campaigns to reimburse any contribution that has exceeded the limit. Under campaign finance laws, an individual is allowed to contribute $2,300 to a candidate in both the primary and general elections, for a total of $4,600. When a donor exceeds the limit in a primary, the campaign has the capability of “redesignating” the excess amount over to the general election on its books. Furthermore, campaigns are not permitted to receive any contribution from a foreign institution or individual. In other words, no campaign is allowed to accept any donation from a non-U.S. citizen and a non-U.S. based corporation or institution. This is considered by many campaign financers to be the most important campaign finance law.

Sources:

1) Kenneth R. Timmerman-http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_fundraising_illegal/ 2008/09/29/135718.html
2) Matthew Mosk-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/ 10/28/ar2008102803413_pf.html

SOCCER: Champion's League Matches Resume

2009-02-24T10:42:00.000-08:00

The Champion's League games are back today and tomorrow (24th and 25th). Here are the games and my predictions:

March 24th
Arsenal v. Roma 1-1
Atletico v. Porto 2-0
Lyon v. Barcelona 1-3
Inter v. Man. United 1-2

March 25th
Chelsea v. Juventus 1-2 (I know I am a Chelsea fan)
Real Madrid v. Liverpool 0-2 (if Gerrard plays)
Sporting v. Bayern 0-2
Villareal v. Panathinaikos 1-1 (Well, I am Greek)

Tell me your Predictions!

WORLD POLITICS: North Korea Working on Long-Range Ballistic Missile

2009-02-24T10:22:00.000-08:00

A fairly recent NYT.com article states that North Korea has been working on a long range ballistic missile that has the capabilities of reaching certain parts of North America. North Korea announced their space program a couple of days ago which will include releasing a satellite in the Earth's orbit. This attempt will allow North Korea with the technology to attack North America.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Asia last week discussing this matter with the leader of South Korea. Both of them stated that N.K. announcement was "very unhelpful" and "provocative."

I believe that N.K. will carry out its task of threatening North American airspace and any US incentive will do nothing to change their mind. For instance, Clinton told N.K. that if they abandon the program, then the US will supply them with economic aid. This is stupid and ridiculous. I believe North Korea's goal is to achieve a step closer to some sort of power or leverage against the US. Why would they give up their attempt for some economic aid? And, who are we, with our economy going downhill, to provide "rogue" nations with any financial support?

Just imagine this scenario: Imagine I enter your house, while your whole family is eating dinner. You know I look familiar because you have seen me in the papers a couple of times before. I have a bad reputation and have taken a couple of lives. I am a loose cannon with a trigger happy finger if you will. So, you approach me and ask me what business I have in your house. I just tell you that I was measuring how far my house was from yours. Not liking this idea, particularly because of the reputation I have, you try to bargain with me and tell me to stop this at once and to erase my recordings. I seem reluctant to do so and as I go to leave you tell me in desperation that you will provide me with some money if I do so. I pause before I open the door, and tell you "I will think about it." Now, your family is left with the fear of not knowing whether I will do anything with what I have done, and you have just appeared vulnerable before your possible future enemy. What will happen next? Power shift, fear, anxiety, war, negotiation, etc. Who knows!

SOCCER: English Premier League 2nd Update

2009-02-20T05:46:00.000-08:00

This week is going to be quite interesting for English soccer fans. We have Chelsea v. Aston Villa, Man. United v. Blackburn, Arsenal v. Sunderland, and Liverpool v. Man. City.

The most interesting game out of the four will be Chelsea v. Aston Villa for a couple of reasons. As you all know from my previous post, Chelsea's ex-manager was relieved from his duties prematurely and Roman Abramovich, owner oof Chelsea, signed Guus Hiddink as the new and temporary manager of the Blues. Guus Hiddink headed the Russian International team in the Euro Cup and is quite an experienced and hardcore manager in my opinion. So, this weeks game will display his unique tactic. Hopefully, its wha it takes to get Chelsea back on their feet again. Second, Aston Villa is in third place, while Chelsea trails right behind them in fourth. So, the winner of this game will determine who will advance.

Stay tuned for more soccer. If you reside in the United States, the most interesting games of the Premier League are being broadcasted on Fox Soccer Channel and Setanta Sports. If you do not have neither channel, I suggest you watch them live on your PC.

As of Feb. 20th, 2009:

Man Utd	25	59
Liverpool	25	54
Aston Villa	25	51
Chelsea	25	49
Arsenal	25	44
Everton	25	40
Wigan Athletic	25	34
West Ham Utd	25	33
Man City	25	31
Fulham	24	30
Sunderland	25	30
Hull City	25	29
Newcastle	25	27
Bolton	25	27
Portsmouth	25	27
Tottenham	25	25
Stoke City	25	24
Blackburn	24	23
Middlesbrough	25	22
WBA	25	22

SPORTS: Snowboarding Accident

2009-02-19T13:19:00.000-08:00

Hey guys, I just wanted to share this funny snowboarding accident video with you. I went to Mount Killington in Vermont last year and I thought I could jump a small man-made ramp. To use Christian Bale's words, I am such an "amateur." Oh yeah and I know what your thinking. No! This is not the reason why my back hurts. Although it could be a reason why it cannot heal.

Politics: The Best and Worst Presidents

2009-02-17T10:58:00.000-08:00

I just want all of you to check this recent article on CNN, which ranks our Presidents from best to worst.

Do you guys agree that Abraham Lincoln should be the best US President? And, would you settle with the fact that George W. Bush is only in the 36th rank? I always thought that FDR will be no.1 and Andrew Johnson would be the worst of the bunch. But, tell me what you think.

Also, I think any methodological approach to these sort of research experiments are ridiculous.

Here is the video from Keith Olbermann's show:

TV: 24 Season 7, Episode 9 4:00pm-5:00pm Review

2009-02-17T07:32:00.000-08:00

So, we finally know who the mole is within the FBI. Sean is working with the conspiring organization set out to make President Taylor look bad. I always thought all along it would have been Janis because I would love to hate that genius freak. But, unfortunately its awkward Sean. However, I believe Sean was forced into helping out with the safe entry of Dubaku. He is definitely a conflicted character that we would end up feeling sorry for in the end.

Now Dubaku's girlfriend is not going to be on the show for too long because her death is necessary in order to weaken Renee's relationship with Jack. The death of Vosser, Renee's torture tactics, and now with the possible death of Malika, Dubaku's girlfriend, Renee will doubt the way Jack Bauer operates.

Chloe is back working for the government which is good I guess because her actions will eventually discover the mole in the FBI's office. She will also get into fights with Janis because I believe they have similar personalities. Two competing computer geeks within the same environment is never good.

We also get introduced to President Taylor's daughter who does not have a good relationship with her mother. Her character will be a fine addition to the show. I also believe that Taylor's son is still alive because we have not technically seen his death. Also, the First Gentleman will not die because he is too good of an actor to get thrown off the show too soon.

What I want to know is when are we going to see the main conspirators behind this disaster. We saw a glimpse of one major government member in the 24 Redemption film. The guy I believe is behind the supposed death of Taylor's son and the one aiding the Juma regime in Sangala is played by Jon Voight. I guess we will see him in the 11th or 12th hour of the show series.

Anyway, I cant wait for what will happen next, especially with what Tony Almeida will do to escape his current predicament with the law. Stay tuned for more 24.

SOCCER: Chelsea's Manager Scolari Ousted!

2009-02-10T11:47:00.000-08:00

For all those Chelsea fans out there, a recent article on ESPN Soccernet has stated that Chelsea manager Luiz Felipe Scolari has been relieved of his duties.

Ever since Chelsea's decline in performance, which began about two to three weeks ago, the suits at Chelsea have decided that Scolari is not right for the English team. After 6 months of being hired, Scolari was not able to bring the stamina and fluidity of brilliant soccer that usually accompanies his managerial tactics to Chelsea.

As I watched the previous three Chelsea games, I realized that they weren't bringing their A game. However, was firing Scolari a right move? I think it was not. I have a couple of reasons why this was not an acceptable and logical move.

First, Chelsea is missing several players due to injury, such as Essien, Drogba has been on and off, Joe Cole, and Carvahlo was injured. Second, the manager was new to English football and should have been given more time to make the proper adjustments. Third, it is not wise to remove an integral member of a soccer team especially right in the middle of a season. The chaos of trying to find someone new will definitely disrupt the style of play and psyche of the team.

Has it come to the point where certain football executives do not give enough time to managers to really show what they are made of? To tarnish the record of a legendary football manager because Chelsea has been losing a couple of games seems ridiculous to me. What do you think?

HEALTH: Are Inversion Tables Good For the Back?

2009-02-10T09:35:00.001-08:00

There is not much I expect my readers to know about me, but the one thing they should know is that I have a bad lower back. Back in December of 2006, I helped my friend push his car out of a pile of snow. From the strenuous activity of pushing my L4-L5 disc slipped and has ever since been causing spinal stenosis. The intermittent pain has been with me up until now. I have had no relief and I have been to hundreds of medical professionals. For instance, I have been to three physical therapists, one kinesthesiologist, one osteopath, two spinal surgeons, three orthopedics, four chiropractors, and two neurologists. I have probably seen more doctors and hospitals than a hypochondriac. Anyway the reason I am posting is to review a product that has provided me with a breakthrough and relief for my back pain.

The product is called the Ironman Gravity 4000 Inversion table. The Ironman 4000 is a fine addition to its other brothers and sisters. However, instead of a roller to hold your feet, the 4000 edition provides you with a mechanism that locks your ankles securely and safely. Also, it provides you with a lumbar cushion that provides some lumbar support and forces your spine to assume its natural position.

Here are some tips when using any inversion table:

Do not invert yourself without shoes or with socks only. Inversion without shoes will provide pain, and inversion with socks only will provide pain as well and may also make you slip out of the rubber holdings.
When beginning to invert, take your time. Do not rapidly go in the inverted position. Let the blood flow to your upper body slowly.
When using the machine, make sure you have something soft placed under it (where your head will be) just in case you fall off.
When in the inverted position, take the time to do some ab exercises and/or back bends.
Do not stay on longer than 10-15 minutes a session. Try to do about two sessions a day. Do not stay on for more than 30 minutes a day.
While you are returning to an upright position, take it slow. Let the blood flow back to your lower body and to your nerves.

Now that I have provided you guys with some tips, I would like to mention the effects the machine has had on me. If you are someone who sits on a chair for more than 2 hours, than this machine is for you. After you feel that annoying ache or nerve pain, you can just jump on this machine and it will alleviate it for you. If you have a weak core and want to get into shape, then this machine is for you. Doing ab exercises on the inversion table is much easier than doing them on the floor, since the table relieves the pressure from your spine. The table also feeds your discs with the certain nutrients it needs to slip back into its normal position. The table elongates your spine allowing your discs to flap into a position that allows the blood to flow right through them.

I have been using the machine for two weeks now, and I have had some relief from my three year run of agonizing and debilitating pain. I just want you consumers to know that this machine does not guarantee that it will heal your back and by far it has not done that to mine. If you have chronic back pain, you will soon realize why they call it "chronic."

If anyone has any questions or wants to talk about their back problems, please feel free to comment below. And, for anyone interested in knowing the positives of using an inversion table, the link to the site is here

SOCCER: Premier League Update 1

2009-02-10T09:00:00.000-08:00

2008/2009 English Premiership
		Overall						Home					Away
		GP	W	D	L	GS	GA	W	D	L	GS	GA	W	D	L	GS	GA	GD	P
1	Manchester United	24	17	5	2	41	10	10	1	0	25	4	7	4	2	16	6	31	56
2	Liverpool	25	15	9	1	42	17	7	5	0	19	7	8	4	1	23	10	25	54
3	Aston Villa	25	15	6	4	40	24	5	6	1	18	12	10	0	3	22	12	16	51
4	Chelsea	25	14	7	4	44	15	6	5	2	21	7	8	2	2	23	8	29	49
5	Arsenal	25	12	8	5	38	25	7	3	2	18	11	5	5	3	20	14	13	44
6	Everton	25	11	7	7	34	28	4	5	4	18	16	7	2	3	16	12	6	40
7	Wigan Athletic	25	9	7	9	26	24	6	4	3	13	11	3	3	6	13	13	2	34
8	West Ham United	25	9	6	10	31	32	6	1	6	18	17	3	5	4	13	15	-1	33
9	Manchester City	24	9	4	11	42	32	8	0	5	28	12	1	4	6	14	20	10	31
10	Fulham	23	7	9	7	22	19	7	3	1	19	9	0	6	6	3	10	3	30
11	Sunderland	25	8	6	11	27	33	5	2	6	15	15	3	4	5	12	18	-6	30
12	Hull City	25	7	8	10	31	46	3	3	6	13	25	4	5	4	18	21	-15	29
13	Newcastle United	25	6	9	10	33	42	4	5	3	19	20	2	4	7	14	22	-9	27
14	Bolton Wanderers	25	8	3	14	27	37	4	2	6	11	14	4	1	8	16	23	-10	27
15	Tottenham Hotspur	25	6	7	12	26	31	4	5	4	11	9	2	2	8	15	22	-5	25
16	Portsmouth	24	6	6	12	25	41	4	2	6	16	21	2	4	6	9	20	-16	24
17	Stoke City	25	6	6	13	21	40	6	3	3	13	11	0	3	10	8	29	-19	24
18	Blackburn Rovers	24	5	8	11	27	40	3	4	6	15	21	2	4	5	12	19	-13	23
19	Middlesbrough	25	5	7	13	18	36	3	5	4	10	15	2	2	9	8	21	-18	22
20	West Bromwich Albion	25	6	4	15	24	47	5	2	6	18	24	1	2	9	6	23	-23	22

Provided by ESPN Soccernet.com

Now that Chelsea's hopes for winning the Premiership this year have diminished, my only concern is who will be able to prevent Manchester United from obtaining the cup again. Since Liverpool is my secondary weapon, my dream may be accomplished through their efforts.

With Manchester United one game behind and with 56 points to their name, does Liverpool have a chance to capitalize off their rival's mistakes? Now, with Steven Gerrard injured, do any of you believe that Liverpool can discover what it takes to win the cup this year?

Manchester United will be playing Fulham on Wednesday (Feb. 18th) and the Blackburn Rovers on the 21st of February, and Liverpool will be up against Manchester City on Sunday the 22nd of Feb. Another game to watch would be Aston Villa v. Chelsea on the 21st of Feb. Chelsea and Aston Villa will be battling each other throughout the remainder of the tournament in order to determine who will finish 3rd and 4th.

For more information on the Premier League visit their website here