Vote NO! We Can Do Better Than Prop 101

Hello, Everybody!

I’d like to take this opportunity to write about the current ballot measure, Tucson’s Proposition 101.

You might not know that we are currently in an election cycle for propositions, as this one is rather unusual in both its timing and its brevity.

However, there have been may flyers circulating letting everyone know that they should vote “yes” on Tucson’s Prop 101.  If you’re not in Tucson, you may not have noticed.  If you’re in Tucson, you must have been flooded with these “YES” messages, and you may want an unbiased perspective.

I’m not that one.

I would like people to vote “NO” on Prop 101 and I can tell you why to vote “NO” on or before this coming Tuesday, the 16th of May.

What Prop 101 Does

In general, though, I think all sides agree to this:

Prop 101 takes money from everyone who buys anything in the Tucson City Limits, by way of an increase in the sales tax of .5% (the total sales tax will jump from 8.1% to 8.6%) for a minimum of five years.

Also, the excess money which is gathered from the sales tax increase will be applied to purchasing more hardware for the city police, and then fire departments, and then the remainder will be used to resurface a few roadways.

Everyone agrees that any monies gathered will not be used to fund higher salaries for TPD officers or fire personnel, nor will it go to fund pensions, nor raises in salaries of those who are currently on the TPD and fire forces.  It will not go to hiring more community police “beat walking” officers, and no money will be allocated to having better TPD training for new and existing officers.

The money will go to more militarization, think war toys, for TPD, primarily.  Tucson should not be taxing the poor to be at war with its citizens.

This means that this piece of legislation is bad for people, bad for police and fire, pad for the poor and middle classes, and bad for tourists and travelers.

Claims Being Made

The backers of Prop 101 claim that this city-authored ballot proposition is primarily for roads: for their repair and resurfacing, although this is in no way true or correct.

What is actually written in the bill is that only 40% of the taxes collected will be used for roads: 24% of the total taxes for major arterials and 16% for residential streets.

What is worse is that there basically *is* no residential plan.  What passes for a plan to resurface residential streets is far to broad and overreaching, not at all specific, and far too ambitious.

Moreover, the RTA is already doing residential resurfacing through the end of the year, which will improve the conditions in the neighborhoods which most need the repairs.

Furthermore, Prop 101 backers continually cite a citizens oversight committee, which they say will dictate where repairs are being made, but this committee is never established in the actual text of the law.  That’s right, there is no provision to create an oversight committee, and City Council will have to meet and establish one, or perhaps not, in which case, no such committee would ever exist.

Given that this tax could be permanent, but would certainly last for five or more years, it is my guess that the City of Tucson is just raising taxes under the guise of street improvements, but may just be using this method to line its own coffers.

Police Militarization

The bulk of the money collected with this new additional tax on all city residents and visitors will actually be used for police.  That’s right, TPD would get the lion’s share of this money, and it is not being used for purposes which would benefit the city as a whole.  Some of this 60% also would presumably go for Tucson Fire, although the numbers are not even close to those given to TPD.

I do not agree that it is just honky-dory to give 60% of this new tax to further more Police Militarization of TPD.

There will be absolutely no money for the officers themselves.  This means that hard-working officers would get zero pay raises, no more money for pensions, and Tucson would have no more foot patrols, or any more money for community policing, which we so desperately need.

This is all just a classic “throw money at it” move without any positive effect to speak of.

In addition, Ward 4 would get most of the new sales tax money allocated for TPD.

Now I, Michael Oatman, am running for City Council in Ward 6, but Ward 6 gets absolutely nothing for TPD, and only gets $700K for one fire station.  This is along side all other wards, which get at least $24 million; WTF?!?!

This Proposition is just straight up BAD for Ward 6, and in no way could I vote other than NO on Prop 101.

You can view the full text of the proposed amendments to the law at the City’s website (https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/clerks/2017_CIY_-_Special_Election_5-16-17.pdf).

Put An End To Regressive Taxes

This Proposition would raise money by the implementation of an additional one percent sales tax.  Now in general, and in this case specifically, a sales tax is a flat tax, which applies to everyone who purchases any taxable thing within the Tucson City Limits.

There are taxes which are progressive, like the federal income tax (unless el Trumpo changes that), which do not adversely affect those with lower and no or fixed incomes, and disproportionately tax the rich, who can already afford it.

There are also taxes which are regressive, like sales taxes, which tax everyone at the same rate.  This is inherently worse for middle and low income folks since the amount of tax charged to people who cannot afford it removes money from those people who need all the money they can get just to survive.

This is why a flat, or sales, tax is unfair.  Suppose you taxed someone with two million dollars a 50% tax rate (we wish, right?).  They’d still be a millionaire.  But if you taxed someone with only one dollar a 50% tax rate, that person would no longer even be able to take the SunTran bus.

People need a Universal Base Income in order not just to survive, but to thrive.  It is simply cruel to tax that.

For this reason, regressive taxes like a sales tax are inherently unfair to poor and middle income people, unless of course the law is written so that part of the money collected under the unfair sales tax goes to support those people with low and middle incomes.

This proposition includes no such provision.  With this sales tax increase, Tucson City is telling everyone that they do not give a crap about poor people or the middle class, which is pretty much everybody in Tucson.  What a great idea, NOT!

By passing this proposition, Tucson is making poor people pay for ever-increasing TPD militarization, which should not be happening in the first place!

An Election So Soon?

Now actually, I am a fan of short voting cycles, say, when it comes to electing the President: I think we do not need to drag it out for two or more years.  But the election cycle has to be *at least* a month at the very minimum for it *not* to be some sort of “sneaky election”.  In reality, this election cycle spans all of just three weeks!  This is a total sham which is being rammed through in no time, because if people had more time to vote, they would, and they would certainly vote NO! on Prop 101.

As a matter of fact, this election cycle was so sudden and brief, that in the election pamphlet itself, sent to voters by mail, there was simply no time for anyone to write an article supporting a “NO” vote or position on Prop 101.  Talk about sneaky.

The Democrats who support this chicanery are out of touch, and for that matter, so is the Tucson Weekly, as is obviously the Arizona Daily Star, who all somehow support a yes vote, despite the detriment to their consituents.

It is my conviction that the people of Tucson in general, and particularly those residing in Ward VI, can do far better for ourselves than by what is proposed in Tucson Proposition 101.  Please always vote, and certainly Vote NO! on Tuesday, May 16th!

SO PLEASE GO VOTE!  And Please Vote NO on Prop 101!

Thank you for all that you do,
Michael Oatman

 

Green Party of Pima County

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 4, 2017

The Green Party of Pima County joins a growing coalition to call for a “NO VOTE” on Proposition 101.

“The City of Tucson is asking voters to consider a half-cent sales tax increase over the next five years. The funds collected over the five-year period would be split with $100 million being used to restore, repair, and resurface City streets, and $150 million would be spent on vehicles, equipment, and facilities for the Tucson Police Department and Tucson Fire Department.”

 

The Green Party of Pima County, the Tucson Bus Riders Union, LUPE Tucson, Tucson SURJ, Black Lives Matter Tucson, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the Arizona Palestine Solidarity Alliance unite in calling for a “NO” vote on Proposition 101.

This growing coalition of organizations agree that we need city funding to go towards a sustainable future and a community that is socially just to all.

Unfortunately, Proposition 101 is neither.  Instead of clean, affordable mass transit, Prop 101 will focus on supporting the decaying fossil fuel economy that is contributing to pollution, disease, and the global climate crisis.

In addition, instead of providing funding to make Tucson more secure for its people by providing a municipal I.D., local health services, schools, parks, youth jobs, recreational activities, and affordable public transportation, Prop 101 focuses on increased funding for a police department that repeatedly violates people’s constitutional rights. Prop 101 would fund a 27 million dollar new Southside police sub station and 4.6 million dollar new Southeast annex, yet this information is notably absent from most of the promotional materials for this proposition.

 

“Using a sales tax to increase funding for the police is an unfair burden on poor people and communities of color to pay for something that targets and surveils them. More policing means higher incarceration rates for poor people and communities of color, contributing to things like the school to prison pipeline”, says Edward Cott from LUPE Tucson.

Tucson requires bold and visionary solutions if we are to leave a livable world to the next generation and beyond and Prop 101 falls short by a long shot.

#  #  #

CONTACTS :  

Eduardo Quintana

GPPC Media Coordinator

eduardohqf@gmail.com  520-360-8710

 

Lena Rothman

GPPC Gender Outreach  

lenarothman1313@gmail.com 520-881-9495

Hey, Everybody! I’m running for Tucson City Council!

It’s Official.

My name, Michael Oatman, will be on the 29 August 2017 Green Party primary ballot (provided my nomination petition signatures are turned in during May). Since I’m running unopposed in the Green Party, that will advance me into the 7 November 2017 General Election for Tucson City Council Ward VI, or six, or 6 if you prefer.

I’m running against Steve Kozachik, who used to be a Republican, and another Republican. But Ward 6 is filled with Progressive Democrats and Greens.

I think the choice is simple: “Ward Six, Vote Green! Vote Oatman in 2017!”

Click above to read more and help out! Contribute! Get Signatures!

You can also read my Endorsement Application form sent to Bernie’s campaign spinoff, Our Revolution.

Oh, and if anyone wanted a picture of me, just watch my TV show, Illegal Knowledge.

Here is my Press Release:

~ ~ ~

Hello, please circulate widely, thank you!

Contact: Michael Oatman
Michael Oatman For Tucson Ward 6
Tel: (520) 302-5465 (Tucson Offices)
Fax: (206) 202-2194
Email: wardsix@MichaelOatman.info
Website: http://MichaelOatman.info/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TUCSON, AZ (UFNPSI) — 19 April 2017

Michael Oatman is announcing that he is currently an official candidate for Ward Six of the Tucson City Council in 2017.

He will be representing the Green Party of Pima County in the 29 August 2017 Primary Election and in the 7 November 2017 General Election.

He will be attempting to unseat the current City Council member, Steve Kozachik, a former Republican-turned-Democrat.

Oatman has been registered nearly always with the Green Party or as an independent voter for over a decade. He has participated in the 2008 Arizona Presidential Preference Election as a Democrat and again in 2012 and 2016 under the Green Party. He placed third in 2012 Arizona Green Party voting, and won outright in Apache County. In 2012, he also placed tied for first with fellow Green Party candidate Richard Grayson in voting amongst candidates who participated in the Tucson Weekly’s Project White House contest.

Says Oatman, “The people in Ward Six are rather progressive,and want a new direction for the City Council. I feel that I can represent them in Council far more to their interests than either of the two Republicans currently running. Oh yeah, that’s right, Steve’s a Democrat”.

Oatman, a Tucsonan since 1999, is a local television show host, businessman and entrepreneur, and lives in Ward Six, just south of Columbus and Glenn in central Tucson.

This is his first run for a seat on the Tucson City Council.

# # #

Please see his website for further information: http://MichaelOatman.info/

Michael Oatman is currently accepting invitations for interviews from all news and media outlets. Please contact Mr. Oatman using any of the contact methods provided in the header of this release. Thank You for Your Interest!

With Love,
We Can All Take The Power Back!

Vote Green! Vote Oatman!

Thank You,
Michael Oatman.

~ ~ ~

wardsix@MichaelOatman.info
(520) 302-5465

Hey, Thanks Everyone! I’ll See You Again In 2020!!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TUCSON, AZ (UFNPSI) — 31 December 2015

Michael Oatman is announcing that his current 2016 Presidential Run is now suspended.

He will be seeking the office again in 2020.

His interim plans are to seek the office of Tucson Ward 6 City Council Member, unseating Steve Kozachik.

Please see this website for further information. Meanwhile, please consider voting for Bernie Sanders.

The 260 or so Arizona Presidential Preference Election Nomination Ballot Signatures have been appropriately disposed. Please Watch The Video to find out how. This video has been compressed to fit in the hosting service used. For the original MP4 @ 1080p 720×640, please send inquiries to FEC@MichaelOatman.info.

With Love,
We Can All Take The Power Back!

Vote Green!
Vote Oatman!

Happy New Year,
Michael.

~ ~ ~

An Open Letter To Mayor And Council Of The City Of Tucson, as delivered in chambers on 19 May 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TUCSON, ARIZONA, 21 May 2015 (UFNPSI).

An Open Letter To Mayor And Council Of The City Of Tucson,
as delivered in chambers on 19 May 2015.

Mayor, Council, thank you. My name is Michael Oatman, and I live in Tucson.

I am here to talk to you about dinosaurs … and while you might think I am refering to Access Tucson, … no. To which I refer *is* the Mayor and Council.

You are trying to privatize Tucson 12 and Access Tucson, through the RFP process, when so many of us in the community bear the conviction that our community media should remain fully funded through the City of Tucson.

Now, I thought privatization was a Republican thing ….

The amount you set, $300,000, when the current budget for both is somewhere between $550,000 and $650,000, is clearly not enough for both Tucson 12 and Access, and it is setting a very low bar. These both cannot be funded this way without draconian cuts, or, charging for programming time, or advertising, or all of these.

What’s worse is that you are still keeping millions of dollars in franchise fees which are earmarked to fund both these channels.

Now if you do not have enough pie to go around, please expand the pie and invest in projects, like providing Gigabit Ethernet, which is massively revenue positive, using the Copenhagen or Chattanooga models, as very many US cities are now doing.

Why do we deal with uncertainty? We all know what Access and Tucson 12 are like now. Why risk throwing that all away? Who knows what we will get with private enterprise handling these? It would be that much better to keep them as they are.

Or, is it actually your goal for the RFP process to fail, so that you can sell the property for another giant student housing complex?

Now, if you continue to pursue the RFP process instead of using City Funding … *you* will be DINOs … that is, Democrats In Name Only. Yes, you too will go the way of the dinosaurs, and *your* asteroid will be *your* loss in *your* next election.

Thank you.

~ ~ ~

Michael Oatman
Host / Producer,
Illegal Knowledge TV
(520) 302-5465
mac@IllegalKnowledge.com
IllegalKnowledge.com

I Am Tied For First in PWH Voting! Thank You To Everyone Who Voted!

I am rather pleased to report that after all the votes have been tallied, I placed tied for third place with 6.87% of the vote total in the Arizona Green Party results in the 2012 Presidential Preference Election.  First I would like to say thank you incredibly much to the people who voted for me this year, I would like to congratulate all the voters who made this election one of the most participated with a 45% turnout, and I will guarantee that I will be running again for US President as well as for other offices in the future.

I would also like to congratulate Jill Stein, the winner of the Green Party Election with 68.9% of the total vote, and her runner up, Kent Mesplay with 8.68% of the total Arizona Greens voting for him.  I would also like to congratulate all the Project White House (PWH) candidates who participated in this year’s election.

Among the PWH candidates, who were Richard Grayson, Gary Swing, and myself, it was Richard and I who tied for first place with 35.8% each of the PWH vote.  Gary Swing finished closely behind in third with 28.3% of the PWH vote and fifth overall with 5.42% of the total vote.  Jill Stein, Kent Mesplay and Gerard Davis (who received 3.25% of the total vote, thereby finishing last amongst the Arizona Greens) all chose not to participate in Project White House in 2012.

The PWH Greens kicked butt compared to their PWH Republican counterparts when it came to capturing the largest portion of the electorate, beating the Republican percentage by 18.4%, although not so much if you only count raw numbers of votes since there are far fewer Greens in Arizona.

There were 106 people in Arizona who voted for any of the Project White House Green Party candidates (19.1% of total Green votes), and (a huge!) 3,444 Arizonans who voted for PWH Republican Party candidates (well, not that huge, since those 3,444 people make up less than 1%, only 0.68%, of the total votes cast by Republicans).  Of those few thousand some Republicans, Sarah Gonzales was the clear winner at 44.7% of the PWH vote, and placed sixth in the total Republican vote (after Romney, Santorum yuck, Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Perry) with 0.30% of the total.  I wholeheartedly offer my congrats to Sarah for her outstanding performance and participation in the debates.

Of the PWH Republicans, second place went to Cesar Cisneros with 12.2% of the PWH vote (placing ninth in total), third went to Mark Callahan with 10.4% of PWH voters, and in fourth, fifth and sixth places were “Dick” Perry, Don Benjamin and Kip Dean respectively, with 9.1%, 6.5% and 5.7% of all PWH votes.  The remaining five PWH Republican candidates were Ron Zack (4.4%), Matt Welch (2.5%), Jim Terr (1.7%), Charles Skelley (1.7%) and lastly Simon Bollander (1.5%).  The five lowest placing PWH Republicans totaled 11.8% of the PWH vote, and places 2 through 6 totaled 43.9% of the PWH vote for the Republicans.

Of all the votes which I received, Pima County voters accounted for only 21.1%, with the majority of my votes coming from voters in Maricopa County with 52.6% of the total.  I also received votes from voters in Yavapai (10.5%), Coconino (5.3%), Pinal (2.6%), Navajo (2.6%), Mohave (2.6%) and Apache (2.6%) Counties.  Thank you again to everyone in those counties who voted for me.  Actually, Jill Stein won the county-by-county in every county except Apache County, where I received the sole Green Party vote cast from the Lukachukai precinct, thereby actually winning the only county in Arizona which Jill Stein did not win.  Now, do I get delegates for that?

I would also like to thank the single Green Party voter in Oatman, Mohave County, Arizona who noticed the name similarity (the town was named after a branch of my family which moved out west about 180 years before I did) and voted for and carried your precinct for me.  It’s nice to have support from a town which shares your name.

I compiled a map which you can see here which contains the county-by-county results for the Green Party and how I placed (or, see the map of only the PWH candidate placements).  As it turns out, I either placed or tied for either first or second place in six of the 15 counties in Arizona, there were six others in which I made the top three, I tied for fourth twice, and I never placed last.  Aside from Jill Stein, who outplaced me (and everyone) in 14 of the 15 counties, of the four other Green candidates running, I was outplaced by no one in six counties, by Grayson in five counties, by Mesplay in four, and by Swing and Davis in just two.  So all in all I’d say I did pretty well.  Thank you all again for your support!

I’ll keep writing here; I will keep this blog active, so check back often, and please remember to comment if you would like!

Thank You for Voting Green, and Thank You for Voting Oatman!!!

Announcing First Arizona Presidential Preference Election Debate in 2012 (press release)

Hello, please circulate widely, thank you!

Contact: Michael Oatman
Oatman for President 2012
Tel: (202) 642-4785 (D.C. Offices)
Tel: (520) 302-5465 (Tucson Offices)
Fax: (206) 202-2194
Email: 2012@MichaelOatman.net
Website: http://2012.MichaelOatman.net/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Announcing First Arizona Presidential Preference Election Debate in 2012

Description:  The first Arizona Presidential Preference Election debate of 2012 will be held on 18 February 2012 at 8:00 PM.

TUCSON, AZ, 15 February 2012 — All candidates whose names appear on either the Green Party or Republican Arizona Presidential Preference Election ballots have been invited to participate in the first debate of the 2012 election season.  The debate will be held at Access Tucson, 124 East Broadway Blvd. in Tucson, Arizona, at 8:00 pm on 18 February 2012.  All media outlets are welcomed to cover the debate immediately prior to and following the event.

The presidential debate will be produced by the television show entitled “Illegal Knowledge” and will be hosted by Tucson Weekly contributor and San Diego City Beat newspaper columnist Dave Maass.  It is being coordinated by Illegal Knowledge producer and candidate Michael Oatman and Tucson Weekly writer Jim Nintzel.  There will not be a specific topic to be debated, but will cover all areas of the social and political spheres.

There will also be a second debate to be held at Access Tucson on the following day, on the 19th.  This next debate will be produced by the Tucson Weekly in conjunction with Access Tucson and feature the winners from the debate on the 18th.  More details of the second debate will be given on the night of the 18th at the first debate.

A third debate has been scheduled to be held in Mesa, Arizona on the following Thursday 23 February 2012.

Green Party candidate Michael Oatman quipped, “We did this in 2008 and it worked really well, so I’m definitely looking forward to the debate this year”.

# # #

Michael Oatman is currently accepting invitations for interviews from all news and media outlets.  Please contact Mr. Oatman using any of the contact methods provided in the header of this release.  Thank You for Your Interest!

Vote Green!  Vote Oatman!

Michael Oatman For President of
These United States of America!
Email: 2012@MichaelOatman.net
Website: http://2012.MichaelOatman.net/

With Love, We Can Take the Power Back!

At Last, GOP Admits They Want Slavery

Source:  Huffington Post

I’m not quite sure who at Huff Post didn’t manage to catch this the first time around.

From the above cited article:

The politicians pushing drug testing disagree. In South Carolina, where the unemployment rate is 9.9 percent, well above the national average of 8.5 percent, Republicans want the nation’s toughest requirements: blanket drug testing of every applicant for unemployment benefits and compulsory volunteer work for the long-term jobless.

Now, I don’t know if I need to give you the definition of the word “volunteer”, but I’ll give you the link.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volunteer

Of course, the issue here is that Republicans want to mandate “compulsory volunteer work” for those on unemployment insurance.  Well, if, to volunteer, you must be actively willing to do whatever it is, then how exactly is the oxymoronic phrase “compulsory volunteer work”, presumably where, since the work would be compulsory (so you would not actually be volunteering, but would be mandated to work, and to work at no pay at that), how is it not an exact description of slavery?

With slavery, it is mandated that people perform work without pay, and with “compulsory volunteer work”, it would be mandated that people perform work without pay.  Ergo, “compulsory volunteer work” is just a euphemism for slavery.

Finally, the Republicans admit what everyone has been thinking.

The GOP wants to go back to the “good ole days”, um, where slavery was legal?  Really?  But there it is, in black and white, for all to see.  The GOP wants us all to be slaves.  I knew it.

Wait one minute.  If the GOP wants to go back and make us all “volunteer” slaves, could they perhaps get a few non-profits together that had people picking cotton and tobacco, and maybe even vegetables in the fields?  That way, the GOP could kill the DREAM Act, have their border fences, and not have to pay for any housecleaning and gardening labor.  They could still prevent any economic recovery, since all of us who were out of work would have to volunteer for the already rich, who, after all could pay for these jobs, but if they have slaves, then why bother?

This all has to do with the notion that the GOP thinks that anyone who is poor is on drugs, and that those people receiving any form of public assistance must be poor, and therefore on drugs.  I don’t know, but if I were to work for those assholes, I would need to be on drugs.

First of all, those people who get unemployment insurance (UI) are able to do so because they were just recently employed, and through no fault of their own, they were laid off, downsized, outsourced, or what have you, generally by an already rich Republican.  The money which pays for UI does not come from the individual taxpayer in the first place.  It comes from a tax on corporations which would never be given back to the corporation if left unpaid to the UI recipient, and generally comes out of the allocated employee salary funds from that former employer, so it really is the UI recipient’s money to begin with.

I know for a fact that there are quite a few Republicans who are employed and who use drugs (Rush Limbaugh to name one).  If there are individuals who are employed and who use drugs with the money they earn, it is their business (beyond the scope of not getting busted with the drugs, should they be illegal).  So if someone on UI wants to spend a portion of that retained earned income on drugs, it should be no one else’s business but the UI recipient’s.

The GOP nationwide in the states’ legislatures and in US Congress has been pushing for enactment of legislation which would remove welfare, TANF, SNAP, and UI recipients from having the ability to receive their checks unless they are able to pass a mandated random drug test.  Oh, and by the way, the recipient has to pay for the test.  I thought the GOP was against individual mandates, or perhaps that is just when it suits them.  One law in Florida mandating these measures was struck down because it clearly violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure.

This all caught my eye because there is some pushback from the Democrats who are essentially saying that if you are going to test people who get public money (still not sure why they include UI), then we ought to be testing everyone who gets public money, including state and federal representatives.  Maybe not oddly, but at least effectively, this move made some of the GOP sponsors of the bills withdraw them, in what seems to be a direct admission of hypocrisy by the GOP.

Yes, once the Democrats pushed back by amending the bills so that the GOP bill sponsors would also have to get tested, those Republicans decided that the measure was not such a good idea after all.

I think that if we were going to institute this policy, it would be a good idea to make sure that ALL public money, like corporate banking bailouts for instance, will only go to people who have tested negative for illegal drug use, particularly cocaine, MDMA, and maybe ketamine in their case.  Oh, and how about all those oil subsidies?  No drugs for them.  No more partying with the regulators for you, Big Oil!  Imagine how much money this would save.  Do you really think the oil and banking barons would give up their drugs for public money?  I doubt it.

And the next time you see some sort of whacked-out SOPA/PIPA/NDAA/EEA type of legislation come out of Congress, well, test them too.

Vote Legalization!  Vote Green!  Vote Oatman!

Thoughts on SOTU Address and Responses

Fortunately, I listen to NPR (National Public Radio), so unlike CNN viewers, I was not subject to having to view the GOP ad which aired immediately prior to the address, although I missed out on the video and what I’m sure were quite a few looks from some members of Congress.  I did get to hear the full text of the address, and I figured I would share some of my thoughts on what was said.

Obama opened with thanks to Armed Forces members, which was nice, but I was appalled by his statement that he thinks war makes us safer and more respected around the world.  We know for a fact that it does not.  Our supposed “war on terrorism” (you cannot make war on a tactic) is known to be used as a recruiting tool to enlist more members in Al-Qaeda, and only creates more resentment worldwide.  Claiming otherwise, at first pass which might seem naive, is not so, but is simply a move to create more taxpayer-funded business for the defense industry, and to extend our false imperialism in a battle with China for oil and other energy resources.

Speaking of energy and by extension jobs and the economy, we were asked by Obama to imagine our situation having a more positive outlook.  This is essentially the method employed by Family Guy’s Brian Griffin’s fictitious book, “Wish It, Want It, Do It” and is completely ridiculous.  I can imagine it, but why won’t Obama address the situation in any meaningful ways?  Programs can be instituted in various departments which will help things and which do not require congressional approval, but it seems to be more politically expedient to do nothing and blame the other party for lack of progress.  No wonder approval ratings for both parties are at an all-time low.

We could bring more manufacturing back if there were limits (taxes, tariffs and other fees) imposed on corporations which practice outsourcing to other nations, rather than having us all just wait for the Chinese wage to go up.  With corporate taxes, we need more sticks and fewer carrots.  We already have the biggest corporations paying next to nothing on record annual profits.  These loopholes need to be closed immediately.  Job training needs to work in conjunction with a reduction of military manufacturing and conversion of those defense industry plants and technologies to green energy production and sources.

I do agree that we should offer states something like a 3 to 1 match on state university and college funding increases, and incentivize universities to reduce or not increase tuition.  We also need to increase Pell Grants to twice higher than 2000 levels, and use the Treasury and not banking institutions to handle Student Loan repayments.

Some other thoughts on energy production:

• We cannot afford more oil production, furthermore, we will need to keep the oil we have, and keep it in the ground.  We need to use only carbon-negative or -neutral energy sources.
• We cannot afford to ruin all the water and create hundreds or thousands of earthquakes by further developing hydrologic fracturing (fracking).
• We cannot afford to susidize oil production any longer.  We need to tax it, along with fracking, completely out of existence.
• We can afford to develop wave energy generation, where strings of hinged booms and buoys float on ocean waves and where the hinges turn generators based on the wave movement.
• We can afford to harness underwater tidal forces which can turn propellers like wind turning a windmill as the tides go in and out.
• We can afford to make wind energy more efficient and more plentiful, including offshore.  Paint them to blend in if you are so concerned with your scenic view of the offshore oil rigs.
• We can afford to make solar more efficient and more varied, and use the massive acreage located within the Nevada DOE site to make enough solar energy for all the homes in the US.
• We can afford to place solar and wind installations on all manufacturing plants, with all new homes getting active and passive solar on the rooftops.
• We can afford to make better batteries, so I agree with Obama on that one.
• We can even develop (it has been done) GM bacteria which take greenhouse gases out of the air, and then which use the sequestered molecules to thrive and excrete oil which we can use.  I suspect the same method could be used to create natural gas.

Any idea to help alleviate the mortgage crisis is a good one.  What about getting peoples’ foreclosed and unpurchased houses back to them?

How about getting mercury out of vaccines?  Well, getting it out of the water is great also.  Strengthening the FDA and preventing mercury, dioxins and arsenic from entering fish and other seafood chains via stream runoff is wonderful.

Here’s a better idea, we can increase the taxes on corporate gains, etc. (Romney’s and Buffet’s incomes) and let the added 10-20% increase be earmarked by those taxpayers individually toward their choice of investments for R&D to colleges, universities and green energy businesses.

As for fixing the tax code, there are various numbers which could be used, but we should employ a progressive taxation system similar to the following, where individual incomes of:

• >$1M should pay 40% on amounts at or above $1M,
• >$500K should pay 25% on amounts between $500K and $1M,
• <$50K should pay zero, and
• incomes between $50K and $500K should pay 15% on amounts between $50K and $500K.

In addition, FICA & Medicare (at whatever percents, usually 2%-6% each depending on the national mood) are taxed on all incomes over $50K, with no upper limit.  There should be a 50% estate tax for liquidity over $1M, though not for real estate and investments.  The total tax levied on all corporate gains and investment incomes should be about 30%, and would be excluded from the calculation of the individual incomes above.  Married couples filing jointly would double the income requirements above, and dependants claimed would allow for a $25K deduction per dependant.  All income amounts would be COLA adjusted for successive years.  Therefore, if your household consisted of a married couple with two children filing jointly, and your combined annual income did not exceed $150K with no investment income, you would pay no taxes.  If you were single making $100K/yr, with $50K in investment income, you would pay $22.5K plus FICA & Medicare on $50K (somewhere around $2K to $6K), for an effective tax rate of about 18%.  This would increase current revenues compared to the current tax code (it would generate somewhere around $2.5T in income taxes, plus perhaps $2T in capital gains / investment taxes), and would create massive spending from the middle class, which would in turn create the largest economic expansion since the 1950s and 1990s, thereby generating even more tax revenue, particularly for states and localities.  Taxing corporations at a reasonable rate (20-25%) on incomes exceeding $500K with no loopholes would generate another $2T or so.  We would have a $2T surplus and the debt would be paid off in a record 8 years.  It only takes political will or better members of congress to accomplish this.

You can feel cynical about nothing getting done, but you could also just institute massive political reform.  Mandate shortened campaign seasons to a couple or a few months.  Ban all stock and commodities trading by congress people.  Limit lobbyists to genuinely interested parties, with no payouts.  Limit campaign contributions to individuals only.  Have no more filibusters in the Senate unless you actually take the floor and read something into the congressional record which pertains to the topic at hand.  Limit supermajorities in normal voting where a 50% majority is required.  End the Bush Cycle between lobbyists, regulators, other oversight positions, congress, and other federal positions.  Once someone takes one position within an industry, they cannot switch (from private to public sectors or vice versa) until having not been employed in that industry for at least five years.  The SEC needs more teeth.

The way you end the source of attacks against US is to get our bases out of Mecca & Medina, stop state funding Israel & Pakistan, get out of Afghanistan, and end the “war on terrorism”.

Finally, we can give better, free, jobs training to veterans, and really to everyone, and not just incentives for companies who hire them.

That would be my response to the 2012 SOTU address, but it was not the response given by Mitch Daniels, the GOP Governor of Indiana.

Instead, Daniels simply regurgitated the same old talking points from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.  How does such an uncaring racist blowhard drug addict (Rush) get to be the non-titular head of the Republican Party anyway?  Perhaps that was too rhetorical.

Daniels talked about there being roughly a 20% unemployment rate, which was really odd, since Republicans never count those not actively job seeking as being unemployed, I suppose unless it suits them.

Republicans do not even want more employment.  Rather, they want higher profits for their corporate donors.  How exactly do you suppose we got into this mess in the first place?

Neither do Republicans want equality.  They want rich white land-owning males to have everything and for everyone else to be slaves, leave or die.

If a Republican cannot route a pipeline through a poor neighborhood, he (and not she) will route it through a wetland.  Daniels said that the XL pipeline deal is, and I quote, “pro-poverty”.  Now, I do not know if Daniels knows yes from no, good from bad, left from right, for from against, but he obviously does not know pro- from con-.  XL is pro-poverty alright.  It is also pro-environmental-destruction.  Tar sands are about the most inefficient and carbon-positive producers of oil known on the planet, and routing a pipeline through an aquifer, particularly the largest in the Midwest, is about as dumb an idea as not using hardened cement on a blowout preventer.  Between XL, drill-baby-drilling in the oceans, fracking, and trying to end the Clean Water Act and EPA, one would guess by their actions alone, that Republicans wanted all the potable water in the country to simply disappear.

Why do Republicans constantly state that raising their tax rates on largely investment earnings will somehow hurt jobs?  It will not.  People will continue to invest (unless the tax on investment earnings was 100%), and the higher the tax levied, the less risky the investments will be.  Graphically plotting gross tax revenue versus tax rate levied looks like a bell curve, and we are way down on the left side low end.

If Daniels wants growth, then his Senate and House compatriots ought to approve the jobs bills introduced this year.  If Daniels wants Obama to fail just like Rush and McConnell stated, he will not want growth.

If Republicans like saving money, they will use the goddamn energy saving light bulbs.  What a ruse!  I replaced 100% of the light bulbs in my apartment (even in the fridge and under the range hood) with the new energy saving kind (for a total cost of $25), and my monthly electric bill dropped by $20 overnight.  I’ll save $215 in the first year of using them.  They even now come encased in a coated glass bulb which acts to diffuse the light, so they shine light just like a normal incandescent, and they warm up to full brightness in about a minute.  You no longer need to get blinded by the compact fluorescent coil.  What a deal!  Buy them in packs of 5 or 10 to save money.

And finally, contrary to what Daniels said, to have national bankruptcy, our GDP (FY2011 was $15.0T — T is trillion) needs to be smaller than our annual interest on the federal debt ($15.23T total, and $0.457T of that is interest).  We are not even close, well, yet.  Our annual federal budget is about one quarter of our GDP, and is over seven times the annual interest on the debt.  If Daniels is concerned that the debt as a percentage of GDP is just over 100%, he should feel better to know that following WWII, the debt was just over 120% of GDP and in 35 years, under Jimmy Carter, we managed to get that percent down to just over 30%.  Reagan/Bush proceeded to bring that figure back up to nearly 70%.  Clinton brought it down to about 55%, and Dubya brought it back to 70%.  Obama did the rest.  However, the debt needs to be $500T (over 30 times the current amount) to get to where interest payments (at 3% interest) exceed the GDP, at which point the US would become insolvent.  Even if we run a $2T defecit every year (the largest defecit ever in 2009 was $1.9T), it would still take 242 years to reach that point (the United States will be 236 years old on 4 July 2012).  Now, we absolutely do need to pay down the debt, but we do not need to make such draconian austerity measures like the EU is doing, and by doing so, shoot ourselves in the foot by preventing our economic recovery.  Apparently Daniels does not know how to use a calculator, either.

So, that response got four Pinocchios.  Neither Republicans nor Democrats know what they are doing, and if they do, then they know that all they do is make the already rich richer, and be damned with the rest of the populace.  Here’s not quite a joke: What’s the difference between a neo-conservative (Republican) and a globalist (Democrat)?  Well, the neo-conservative wants the corporation which controls everything to come from this country, while the globalist cares not from which country that corporation comes.  Or, alternatively, the Democrat charges too much for the meal, but the Republican leaves the restaurant before the check arrives and sticks you with the bill.

So what’s the better way?  It is to not elect either to office again.

Vote Green!!!  Vote Oatman!!!

The Republicans Are In Disarray, The Democrats, About As Much (so Vote Green!)

After watching the State Of The Union speech last night, I would like to make a few brief comments on the state of things regarding the presidential election cycle this year prior to publishing my rebuttal here.

I thought the speech itself was well delivered and polished (minus the spilt milk joke of a joke), but lacking in the intensity of programs which were proposed to solve the jobs crisis.  Obama was just trotting out the same old lines which had previously gone nowhere with the GOP and which would have little actual impact on the situation regarding the placement of the US in the new economic model of sustainability, and in actual job creation and retraining.

I was thinking how this speech was in no way going to help him against his GOP rivals, and that his chances of reelection were waning.

But then I thought about his GOP rivals.

So maybe all hope is not lost for Obama, but why do we always have to settle for the lesser of two evils?

I was, of course, thinking of the Republican disarray which is the progression of the nominating process so far in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

After Newt won in The Palmetto State, following on the heels of a GOP certified Santorum win in Iowa, and Romney winning New Hampshire, with Ron Paul close on his heels, you get the distinct conclusion that there will not be for some time in the GOP primary, any distinct conclusion.  Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, made a last minute pseudo-run in South Carolina, his home state, instructing his followers to pick “Cain” on the ballot as a vote for Colbert, and he actually placed a solid fifth place, ahead of Rick Perry, who placed sixth.

There has got to be a better way.

Even the Republican’s SOTU response, delivered by Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, was bland, lacking, regurgitated, hating-Obama-for-no-reason-other-than-that-Rush-told-me-to, outright distortions, which should earn it four noses on the Pinocchio scale.  What was that bit about “pro-poverty” and why do you hate those light bulbs so much?

If Obama drops the ball and the GOP cannot come along and pick it up and run with it, then it is truly time to give up on both sides of that fence.

One thing that truly did matter happened this morning.  Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords officially retired from the floor of the House.  In a tearful speech delivered by her friend, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairman, Giffords announced that she was retiring to work on her recovery, and that she would return eventually to public service.  It was so moving that even John Boehner was in tears, or perhaps that is too low of a bar.  In a final tribute to Gabby, 408 House members voted unanimously (!!!) to approve a border security bill she had sponsored.  Gabby was the one good thing Southern Arizona had going on in the US House, and unless Steve Leal wants to take her place, we are headed for a wasteland with the Democrats, as equally as with the Republicans.

But there is another option.  We all have until next Monday 30 January 2012 to renew our voter registrations and turn them in to the Recorder’s Office (on the north side of the courtyard in the Pink Dome Building in downtown Tucson), but this time, we need to register for the Green Party!

With the Green Party there will be no more partisan blockades, and there will be an actual genuine putsch to actually improve things!  You will get jobs, actual manufacturing base, no stupid fake wars, and no reliance on foreign oil!

Plus, I’m running as a Green Party candidate, so you can …

Vote Green!  Vote Oatman!