Sunday, April 10, 2011

Gates pushes to extend occupation of Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis protest

Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:00 PM EDT
by Laurence Lewis for Daily Kos

This came up on Thursday:

Months before the United States is due to complete its withdrawal from Iraq, Washington is stepping up pressure on Iraqi leaders to decide whether U.S. troops should stay to help fend off a still-potent insurgency.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking ahead of meetings with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders during a visit to Baghdad, said the United States would be willing to consider extending the U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond the end of this year.

It's up to the Iraqis to decide. Not the Americans. And Gates is impatiently waiting for the Iraqis to decide. All they need do is ask:

"We are willing to have a presence beyond (2011), but we've got a lot of commitments," he said, not only in Afghanistan and Libya but also in Japan, where he said 19 U.S. Navy ships and about 18,000 U.S. military personnel are assisting in earthquake, tsunami and nuclear reactor relief efforts.

Um. Yeah. A lot of commitments. Humanitarian aid is one thing, and should be a continuing commitment to many nations, but a military presence is another. As in wasted money. As in sacrificed lives.

"I think there is interest in having a continuing presence. The politics are such that we'll just have to wait and see because the initiative ultimately has to come from the Iraqis."

Not from the Americans. Not from the American people, who voted for Barack Obama at least partially because he said he'd get us out of Iraq.

He said the government's inability thus far to appoint a defense minister and an interior minister has hampered its ability to make informed decisions about whether to ask the Americans to stay longer.

Perhaps the government's inabilities ought to provide a clue about the wisdom of keeping troops in Iraq. That's a continuing problem in these continuing quagmires: the wide open questions as to what is supposed to be accomplished, and if there are time frames for their completion. These time frames keep turning out not to be time frames.

On Friday, Gates was making himself even more clear:

Some American troops could stay in Iraq for years, well beyond the scheduled withdrawal of all United States forces at the end of 2011, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Friday.

In remarks to American soldiers in Mosul, north of Baghdad, Mr. Gates said that the United States and Iraq would have to negotiate the terms of any American presence in the country beyond this year. But he held out the possibility that it could happen, or at least that he had been thinking of several situations that might keep American forces in Iraq, perhaps indefinitely.

“That would be part of any negotiation, whether it be for a finite period of time, whether it would be negotiated that there be a further ramp-down over a period of two or three years, or whether we would have a continuing advise-and-assist role as we have in a number of countries,” Mr. Gates said.

It's always fascinating, how this administration uses the word "negotiation." Gates clearly wants Iraq to request the extension. That isn't to be negotiated, all the Iraqis have to do is ask, as Gates continues to emphasize, which sounds better than begging. The details will then be discussed, but the huge and once unthinkable concept of the Obama administration further extending the other failed Bush war too is there but for the Iraqi government's asking.

As for the Iraqi opposition?

Influential Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says his supporters will resume their fight against U.S. forces in Iraq if they stay beyond a deadline to withdraw at the end of the year.

A spokesman read out a statement from the cleric Saturday to hundreds of thousands of his followers gathered in Baghdad.

Sadr's Mahdi Army militia battled U.S. forces for years following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, until declaring a cease-fire in 2008.

As for the Iraqi people?

Tens of thousands of demonstrators in eastern Baghdad marked the eighth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime with a protest Saturday against the American troop presence there.

The demonstrators, followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, rallied in Mustansriya Square, where they called all U.S troops to withdraw from Iraq at the end of the year.

The protesters carried Iraqi flag and banners, with some chanting "Baghdad is a free country, America get out!" and "No for Occupation, No for America."

As for the American people?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/09/964367/-Gates-pushes-to-extend-occupation-of-Iraq-and-tens-of-thousands-of-Iraqis-protest

Campaign Finance Database - Scott Walker Contributors

Click on an interest category below to obtain a list of contributions from individuals within that category.

Click Here to view all contributions for this candidate or leadership committee.
Interest CategoriesAmount
Agriculture$201,968.00
Banking & Finance$857,452.00
Business$599,608.89
Civil servant/public employee$68,592.81
Construction$888,339.53
Defense$5,150.00
Education$105,884.97
Energy$65,764.84
Health Professionals$748,098.95
Health Services/Institutions$344,380.57
Insurance$369,460.55
Labor Unions$1,460.00
Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists$402,266.93
Manufacturing & Distributing$1,134,138.59
Natural Resources$184,686.58
Non-Profit/Social Services$50,020.00
Political/Ideological$47,825.00
Real Estate$503,880.04
Retired/Homemakers/Non-income earners$1,080,909.39
Road Construction$146,879.00
Telecommunications & Computers$118,846.70
Tourism/Leisure/Entertainment$196,078.08
Transportation$314,492.44
Unknown$746,302.13
TOTAL$9,182,485.99
Time of this request: 04/10/2011 4:08 PM

http://www.wisdc.org/index.php?module=wisdc.websiteforms&cmd=searchcandidatesummary&id=102575

Tell Me It's Not Class Warfare: Pharma Ups Cost Of Preemie-Preventative Treatment--From $30 to $1,500!

April 10, 2011 11:00 AM
By Nicole Belle

After having a painful miscarriage some years earlier, I spent a long period of time in my next pregnancy on pins and needles, worried that I might lose another pregnancy. And as it turned out, I did go into labor early. I stayed on bedrest for the last six weeks of the pregnancy and delivered my eldest about 3 weeks earlier than her due date. She was healthy, thank the deity of your choice. But I also had the luxury of having decent insurance, so I knew that I had options in the event that we could not stop the labor from progressive past the point of no return.

So how can you look at this story and not see it as the so-called "free market" deciding that poor people don't deserve those same options?

For years, a drug given to high-risk pregnant women to prevent premature births has cost $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000.

The drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved. But KV Pharmaceutical recently won government approval to exclusively sell the drug, known as Makena (Mah-KEE'-Nah). The March of Dimes and many obstetricians supported that because it means quality will be more consistent and it will be easier to get.

It seems no one anticipated the dramatic price hike.

"That's a huge increase for something that can't be costing them that much to make. For crying out loud, this is about making money," said Dr. Roger Snow, deputy medical director for Massachusetts' Medicaid program.

Doctors say the price hike may deter low-income women from getting the drug, leading to more premature births. And it will certainly be a financial burden for health insurance companies and government programs.

Children born very prematurely may require extensive and expensive hospitalizations, and ongoing therapy and medical assistance, expenses that can drain and/or bankrupt even a well-off family. Will we really be the kind of society that tells people--on the basis of their bank account--that their unborn child doesn't deserve every fighting chance? There was no substantive need to raise the price of Makena so high.

Thankfully, the FDA is going to allow generic versions of the drug

KV Pharmaceuticals recently won FDA approval of its brand-name Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate), a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. The drug is approved to lower the risk of some preterm births in women who have already had at least one previous preterm birth.

The approval seemed to be good news -- until KV announced that Makena would cost $1,500 a shot -- up from the $10 to $15 that compounding pharmacies charge.

After getting the approval, KV sent a letter to compounding pharmacies telling them that the FDA would enforce the company's exclusive right to make the drug.

"This is not correct," the FDA said today.

"In order to support access to this important drug, at this time and under this unique situation, FDA does not intend to take enforcement action against pharmacies that compound hydroxyprogesterone caproate based on a valid prescription for an individually identified patient unless the compounded products are unsafe, of substandard quality, or are not being compounded in accordance with appropriate standards for compounding sterile products," the FDA announced.


http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/tell-me-its-not-class-warfare-pharma-

Proof The Fix Is On: Election Decided Two Days Before Polls Open

Sunday, 10 April 2011 00:07
Citizen Journalist

Wisconsin Election StolenThe Fix Is On: Election Decided Two Days Before Polls Open

Madison Wisconsin - Breaking News: In yet another twist to this on going saga in Wisconsin, politiscoop.com has been tipped off and given documents by Defending Wisconsin PAC that Prove that the Government Accountability Board has been in on the Supreme Court Election fix since at least April 3, 2011. According to the documents below dated APRIL 3, 2011 Justice Prosser was already granted a new term from 2011-2021 and yet this was two days before voters went to the polls. Is there some Prophet that works down at the GAB that can predict the outcome before it even happens? If so, please oh great one down at the GAB tell us who wins in 2012 and let us know when King Walker will be recalled. Anyone else find this funny? I am sure not laughing. It's not at all funny that King Walker picks his Supreme Court minion by hand, then has a County Clerk pull 7,500 votes out of her nose and last but not least the GAB already making it public 48 hours before.

Interesting math going on in Waukesha it seems that a very high percentage of the voters came out and voted Prosser. It seems 29 hours went by before the incompetent clerk Kathy Nickolaus reported the human error to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (Ok just guessing) but she didn't call the GAB, why is that? THEY ALREADY KNEW! Get the word out on this folks, copy/paste click the share button but do not stop sounding this alarm. There is no plausible excuse for this error on the GAB. Is Obama on 2013? I don't see that but again We will hear the excuse but can not stand for it. We need to demand a federal probe into what is going on with our Government. These papers do not lie. Get angry folks. Get Signatures for recall. Get the word out now. If you can not see the pdf below click here to read it
http://www.politiscoop.com/component/content/article/35-last-24h-news/199-proof-the-fix-is-on-election-decided-two-days-before-polls-open.html

What happens when we run out of water?

Sunday, Apr 10, 2011 14:01 ET
By Charles Fishman

Over the last century, H20 has become so convenient we take it for granted. That's about to change

Water is both mythic and real. It manages to be at once part of the mystery of life and part of the routine of life. We can use water to wash our dishes and our dogs and our cars without giving it a second thought, but few of us can resist simply standing and watching breakers crash on the beach. Water has all kinds of associations and connections, implications and suggestiveness. It also has an indispensable practicality.

Water is the most familiar substance in our lives. It is also unquestionably the most important substance in our lives. Water vapor is the insulation in our atmosphere that makes Earth a comfortable place for us to live. Water drives our weather and shapes our geography. Water is the lubricant that allows the continents themselves to move. Water is the secret ingredient of our fuel-hungry society. That new flat-screen TV, it turns out, needs not just a wall outlet and a cable connection but also its own water supply to get going. Who would have guessed?

Water is also the secret ingredient in the computer chips that make possible everything from MRI machines to Twitter accounts. Indeed, from blue jeans to iPhones, from Kleenex to basmati rice to the steel in your Toyota Prius, every product of modern life is awash in water. And water is, quite literally, everywhere. When you take a carton of milk from the refrigerator and set it on the table, within a minute or two the outside is covered in a film of condensation— water that has migrated almost instantly from the air of the kitchen to the cold surface of the milk carton.

Everything human beings do is, quite literally, a function of water, because every cell in our bodies is plumped full of it, and every cell is bathed in watery fluid. Blood is 83 percent water. Every heartbeat is mediated by chemicals in water; when we gaze at a starry night sky, the cells in our eyes execute all their seeing functions in water; thinking about water requires neurons filled with water.

Given that water is both the most familiar substance in our lives, and the most important substance in our lives, the really astonishing thing is that most of us don’t think of ourselves as having a relationship to water. It’s perfectly natural to talk about our relationship to our car or our relationship to food, our relationship to alcohol, or money, or to God. But water has achieved an invisibility in our lives that is only more remarkable given how central it is.

Back in 1999, a team of researchers recorded 289,000 toilet flushes of Americans in twelve cities, from Seattle to Tampa. The researchers used electronic water-flow sensors to record not just toilet flushes but every "water event" in each of 1,188 homes for four weeks. Although the study cost less than $1 million, it is considered so detailed and so pioneering that it hasn't been duplicated in the decade since; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to cite it as the definitive look at how Americans use water at home.

The researchers measured everything we do with water at home -- how many gallons a bath takes, how often the clothes washer runs, how much water the dishwasher uses, who has low-flow showerheads and who has regular, how many times we flush the toilet each day, and how many gallons of water each flush uses.

The study’s overall conclusion can be summed up in four words: We like to flush.

For Americans, flushing the toilet is the main way we use water. We use more water flushing toilets than bathing or cooking or washing our hands, our dishes, or our clothes. When we think about the big ways we use water, flushing the toilet doesn’t typically leap to mind. It’s one of those unnoticed parts of our daily water use -- our daily water-mark -- that turns out to be both startling and significant.

The largest single consumer of water in the United States, in fact, is virtually invisible. Every day, the nation’s power plants use 201 billion gallons of water in the course of generating electricity. That isn’t water used by hydroelectric plants -- it’s the water used by coal, gas, and nuclear power plants for cooling and to make steam.

Toilets and electric outlets may be stealthy consumers of water, but they at least serve vital functions. One of the largest daily consumers of water isn’t a use at all. One of every six gallons of water pumped into water mains by U.S. utilities simply leaks away, back into the ground.

Sixteen percent of the water disappears from the pipes before it makes it to a home or business or factory. Every six days, U.S. water utilities lose an entire day’s water. And that 16 percent U.S. loss rate isn’t too bad -- British utilities lose 19 percent of the water they pump; the French lose 26 percent. There is perhaps no better symbol of the golden age of water, of the carefree, almost cavalier, attitude that our abundance has fostered. We go to the trouble and expense to find city-size quantities of water, build dams, reservoirs, and tanks to store it and plants to treat it, then we pump it out to customers, only to let it dribble away before anyone can use it.

One of the hallmarks of the twentieth century, at least in the developed world, is that we have gradually been able to stop thinking about water. We use more of it than ever, we rely on it for purposes we not only never see but can hardly imagine, and we think about it not at all. It is a striking achievement. We used to build monuments -- even temples -- to water. The aqueducts of the Roman Empire are marvels of engineering and soaringly elegant design. They were plumbing presented as civic achievement and as a tribute to the water itself. Today, water has drifted so far from civic celebration that many people visit the Roman aqueducts without any sense at all that they moved water, or how.

- - - - - - - - - -

Many cities in the world are located where they are because of their proximity to water. For most of human history, in most settings, getting water was part of the daily routine; it was a constant part of our mental landscape. At the same time, humanity’s relationship to its water supply was wary, because water often made people sick. That’s why Poland Spring water was so popular in Boston and New York even a century ago -- it was safe.

One hundred years ago, with the dawn of bacteriology, two things happened. Cities started aggressively separating their freshwater supplies from their sewage disposal, something they had been surprisingly slow to do. (Philadelphia is just one of many cities whose sewage system, a hundred years ago, emptied into a river upstream of the city water supply intakes from the same river.)

And water utilities discovered that basic sand filters and chlorination could clean and disinfect water supplies, all but assuring their safety. In the decade from 1905 to 1915, as dozens of water systems around the country installed filters and chlorination systems, we went through a water revolution that profoundly improved human life forever.

Between 1900 and 1940, mortality rates in the United States fell 40 percent. How much did clean water matter? Harvard economist David Cutler and Stanford professor of medicine Grant Miller conducted a remarkable analysis, published in 2005, teasing out the impact of the new water treatment methods on the most dramatic reduction in death rates in U.S. history. By 1936, they conclude, simple filtration and chlorination of city water supplies reduced overall mortality in U.S. cities by 13 percent. Clean water cut child mortality in half.

Clean municipal water encouraged cities to grow, and it also encouraged the expansion of "mains water" during the twentieth century as the way most Americans got their water. (By 2005, only 14 percent of Americans still relied on wells or some other "self-supplied" water.) That first water revolution ushered in an era -- the one we think we still live in -- in which water was unlimited, free, and safe. And once it was unlimited, free, and safe, we could stop thinking about it.

The fact that it was unfailingly available "on demand" meant that we would use it more, even as we thought about it less.

Our very success with water ushered in not just a golden age of water, but a century-long era in which water became increasingly invisible. Our home water bills, which are less than half our monthly cable TV or cell phone bills, provide almost no insight into how much water we use, or how we use it -- even if we study them.

The new class of micropollutants we are beginning to hear about -- infinitesimal, almost molecular, traces of plastics, birth control pills, antidepressants -- have literally been invisible even to chemists until very recently; you certainly can’t tell if they’re in your water by looking at it or drinking it. The impact of those micropollutants on our health, if any, may remain invisible for years -- and may be almost impossible to predict or trace.

Even our emotional connections to water have become submerged and camouflaged -- the ease with which water enters and leaves our lives allows us an indifference to our water supply. We are utterly ignorant of our own water-mark, of the amount of water required to float us through the day, and we are utterly indifferent to the mark our daily life leaves on the water supply.

But the golden age of water is rapidly coming to an end. The last century has conditioned us to think that water is naturally abundant, safe, and cheap — that it should be, that it will be. We’re in for a rude shock.

- - - - - - - - - -

We are in the middle of a water crisis already, in the United States and around the world. The experts realize it (the Weather Channel already has a dedicated burning-orange logo for its drought reports), but even in areas with serious water problems, most people don’t seem to understand. We are entering a new era of water scarcity -- not just in traditionally dry or hard-pressed places like the U.S. Southwest and the Middle East, but in places we think of as water-wealthy, like Atlanta and Melbourne.

The world has 6.9 billion people. At least 1.1 billion of us don’t have access to clean, safe drinking water -- that’s one out of six people in the world. Another 1.8 billion people don’t have access to water in their homes or yard, but do have access within a kilometer. So at least 40 percent of the world either doesn’t have good access to water, or has to walk to get it.

In the next fifteen years, by 2025, the world will add 1.2 billion people. By 2050, we will add 2.4 billion people. So between now and forty years from now, more new people will join the total population than were alive worldwide in 1900. They will be thirsty.

And then there is the unpredictability of climate change. Water availability is intensely weather- and climate-dependent, in both the developed world and the developing world. At one point in 2008, during the years-long drought across the southeastern United States, 80 percent of the residents of North Carolina were living under water-use restrictions.

The Las Vegas area has 2 million residents and 36 million visitors a year, and its water source in January 2011 was lower than it had been in any January going back to 1965. At that time, Las Vegas had about 200,000 residents; today, on a typical day, there are twice that many tourists in town.

Beyond population and climate change, the other huge and growing pressure on water supplies is economic development. China and India are modernizing at a whirling pace, and together those two countries account for one out of three people in the world. Economic development requires rivers full of water, not just because people want more secure and more abundant water as their incomes improve but because modern factories and businesses use such huge volumes of water.

It is a mistake to think that big water issues are not manageable, however. One of the most startling, inspiring and least well-known examples involves the United States. The United States uses less water today than it did in 1980. Not in per capita terms, in absolute terms. Water use in the United States peaked in 1980, at 440 billion gallons a day for all purposes. Today, the country is using about 410 billion gallons of water a day.

That performance is amazing in many ways. Since 1980, the U.S. population has grown by 70 million people. And since 1980, the U.S. GDP in real terms has more than doubled. We use less water to create a $13 trillion economy today than we needed to create a $6 trillion economy then.

In fact, the most unsettling attitude we’ve begun to develop about water is a kind of disdain for the era we’ve just lived through. The very universal access that has been the core of our water philosophy for the last hundred years -- the provision of clean, dependable tap water that created the golden age of water -- that very principle has turned on its head.

The brilliant invisibility of our water system -- the sources of water unknown to the people who use it, the pipes buried under pavement, the treatment plants anonymous and tucked away, the water service itself so reliable that even the reliability is a kind of invisibility -- that invisibility has become the system’s most significant vulnerability.

That invisibility makes it difficult for people to understand the effort and money required to sustain a system that has been in place for decades, but has in fact been quietly corroding from decades of neglect. Why should I pay higher taxes just to replace some old water pipes? I’ll just drink bottled water if I don’t like what comes out of the tap. It is almost as if tap water is regarded not with respect and appreciation but with a hint of condescension, even contempt.

Of course, you can’t call Dasani if your house catches on fire. We are in danger of allowing ourselves to imagine that since we’ve got FedEx, we don’t also need the postal service. When universal, twenty-four-hour-a-day access to water starts to slip away, it becomes very hard to bring back. But sustaining it requires more than paying the monthly water bill. If we’re going to be ready for a new era of water, we need to reclaim water from our superficial sense of it, we need to reclaim it from the clichés. We need to rediscover its true value, and also the serious commitment required to provide it. It is one of the ironies of our relationship to water that the moment it becomes unavailable, the moment it really disappears -- that’s when water becomes most urgently visible.

From "The Big Thirst" by Charles Fishman. Copyright © 2011 by Charles Fishman. Excerpted with permission by Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Charles Fishman is the author of "The Wal-Mart Effect," and a three-time winner of the Gerald Loch Award for business journalism. His new book is "The Big Thirst: The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water."

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/10/the_big_thirst_excerpt

Experts: Wisconsin only ‘Republican broke’

By David Ferguson
Sunday, April 10th, 2011 -- 11:52 am

According to The Wisconsin State Journal some economists allege that Governor Scott Walker's budget crisis is a fabrication invented out of whole cloth and predicated on a series of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. Walker has repeatedly asserted that the state is "broke", but using the word "broke" they say, is a political tool.


"Wisconsin is Republican broke, but it's not broke," said Mordecai Lee, a UW-Milwaukee political science professor and former Democratic state lawmaker. "Broke suggests near bankruptcy."

Using the word "broke" helps Walker frame the debate around his controversial budget plans on his terms, Lee said, suggesting spending cuts are the only option and any tax increases are out of the question.

One measure of a state's economic health is its public employee pension system. U-W Madison professor of public policy and applied economics Andrew Reshcovsky says Wisconsin's is robust. "Wisconsin gets a gold star. We have a strong pension system." Wisconsin's neighbor to the south, Illinois, by contrast, has one of the nation's most beleaguered public pension systems and currently faces a massive shortfall.

Wisconsin's pension system has more than $80 billon in assets and is expected to cover its obligations made to current workers and retirees, making it one of the "largest and most solvent" pension systems in the country. The percentage of its budget which is already spoken for in prior budges (the "structural deficit") is currently at 13%, which places Wisconsin well within the national average.

Democratic lawmakers suggest that there are better ways to bring the state's budget into line than gutting education and health care programs. Walker's budget proposes more than a billion dollars in cuts to education, which Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha insists is a bad idea. "Education," he maintains, "is your seed corn."

Opponents of Governor Walker's "Budget Repair" bill cite his tax cut laws as evidence that the state is financially better off than Walker's assessments would lead one to believe. The cuts could deprive the state of $166 million in revenues by the next budget "We weren't," said Mordecai Lee, "too broke to do tax cuts for corporations."


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/10/experts-wisconsin-only-republican-broke/

Tea Party figures found failing to pay taxes

Updated: April 10, 2011, 7:54 AM

WASHINGTON -- James Ostrowski and Leonard A. Roberto, central figures in competing factions of Buffalo's low-tax tea party movement, both have a history of failing to pay federal income taxes, Erie County records show.

Liens totaling $52,459.83 have been filed against Ostrowski's Buffalo home for unpaid federal taxes dating back to 2001, the county records show.

Roberto settled five liens against his properties in Depew and Alden about two years ago after a long battle with the Internal Revenue Service that, he said, cost him upward of $150,000.

The Buffalo News checked the tax records of six of Western New York's most prominent tea party figures after a source provided information indicating that Ostrowski, founder of the Free Buffalo and Free New York anti-tax movements, had tax troubles.

That review found that Ostrowski and Roberto stood out as the only local tea party leaders with a history of tax delinquency.

Asked about their tax problems, Ostrowski and Roberto offered radically different explanations.

Ostrowski, a lawyer who does a substantial amount of work for poor clients, said annual income swings left him struggling to pay his taxes.

But Roberto said that, for several years, he didn't withhold federal tax income for his employees as a matter of principle. Last year, Roberto, an Alden small-business owner, got 39 percent of the vote as the Republican candidate against Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo.

Of course, Ostrowski and Roberto are not alone in getting behind on their taxes. For years, the IRS tax compliance rate has hovered at about 85 percent -- meaning about 15 percent of tax revenue goes uncollected.

Much of that uncollected money no doubt is owed by people like Ostrowski, who described himself as a small businessman who just couldn't keep up with his tax bills.

"We're overtaxed," said Ostrowski, a longtime libertarian activist. "Many people can no longer afford to pay their taxes."

Ostrowski shares his small-government philosophy on a blog called Political Class Dismissed, which he describes as "the war room of the tea party movement." He calls himself a "working-class lawyer" who spends an unusual amount of time defending clients who cannot afford legal representation.

"Small business is, by its nature, unpredictable," and the ups and downs of his business prompted his tax problems, he said.

Ostrowski's tax issues are nothing new. The IRS filed a $15,818.51 lien against his home in 2001, followed by a lien for $11,493.35 in 2007. Two more -- for $1,705.55 and $16,607.44 -- were filed on his property in 2009. Another, for $6,834.98, was filed in February.

"I've told the IRS I expect to pay back everything I've owed," Ostrowski said.

County records also show that the state issued four tax warrants against Ostrowski for state taxes totaling $8,624.64 from 1998 to 2006. Ostrowski has settled those bills.

"I just made a large payment recently. My finances are picking up."

Ostrowski, who has done paid legal work for businessman Jack Davis, the independent candidate in the race for the vacant congressional seat in the 26th District, charged that the leaking of his tax troubles was politically motivated.

The Buffalo News promised anonymity to the source who called attention to Ostrowski's tax liens.

But he charged that establishment Republicans who back Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, R-Clarence, the party's candidate for the seat, were retaliating against him for supporting Davis.

Entrenched political interests "do this whenever I'm getting traction," he said. "This is typical of the harassment I've been subject to for a number of years."

The Western New York Tea Party Coalition, which is affiliated with Ostrowski, has endorsed Davis, an anti-immigration trade protectionist who lost three congressional races -- one a primary -- as a Democrat.

TEA New York, a Western New York tea party organization, and Russell Thompson, its leading activist, back Corwin -- as does Roberto.

Roberto alleged no political motives when asked about his tax troubles. Instead, he cited a philosophical difference with the IRS.

The IRS says employers must withhold income taxes from their employees' paychecks -- but Roberto doesn't think the agency has the legal authority to do that.

"I was at war with the IRS for 10 years over this," Roberto said.

It all started, Roberto said, when a friend told him he couldn't find the legal authority that gave the IRS the right to require tax withholding.

The tax agency "refused to tell me if I was correct or not" in thinking that he didn't have to withhold taxes for his employees, Roberto said. "The guy from the IRS just said: Just pay it or I'll come after you."

Asked for evidence for his view that employers don't have to collect taxes on behalf of the IRS, Roberto cited two websites, givemeliberty.org and truthattack.org.

Givemeliberty.org provides a link to the "Articles of Freedom," drawn up by a "Continental Congress" that met in November 2009 in St. Charles, Ill. The Articles of Freedom take issue with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which authorizes a federal income tax.

"We have a fraudulently ratified 16th Amendment in violation of Article V, a direct, unapportioned tax on labor in violation of the tax clauses of Article I," reads the work of the largely unknown Continental Congress.

That Continental Congress also says "we have a president who apparently is not a natural born citizen," even though Hawaii has verified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate. That document can be found online at www.politifact.com, the St. Petersburg Times' Pulitzer-Prize winning fact-checking site.

The truthattack.org site features a "pre-induction physical" for "non-filers" -- those who, for ideological reasons, refuse to file tax returns. The website is run by Tom Cryer, a Louisiana lawyer who, in a case in U.S. Tax Court, is accused of owing the government $1.7 million in taxes and penalties.

Following Cryer's philosophy, Roberto found himself facing $51,109.12 in federal tax liens against his property between 2005 and 2008.

Eventually, Roberto decided to "put the war on hold" and settle with the IRS.

Roberto said the tax disagreement cost him upwards of $150,000. First, he lost out on the money he paid to the employees of his small metal fabricating firm -- the money that the IRS wanted withheld. Then he lost out on the money he had to pay the tax man.

"I paid all the tax again a second time," he said.

Still, Roberto insists that he's philosophically correct.

"No one has shown me where I have the legal obligation" to collect taxes on behalf of his employees, he said.

While such opposition to the federal income tax is a longtime tenet of libertarian philosophy, Ostrowski, for one, advises his ideological soul mates not to withhold their taxes on the basis of beliefs alone.

"I'm not a tax protester," Ostrowski said. "My personal finances are unrelated to any political point of view I've had."

jzremski@buffnews.com

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article389049.ece

Off-the-charts income gains for super-rich

Fri Apr 8, 1:21 pm ET
By Zachary Roth

In recent years, we've been hit with a barrage of statistics, charts, and even full-length books, documenting how inequality is on the rise in America.

But very few of them capture what's happened over the last 30 years or so as well as this image:

Put together by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington think tank, the chart is pretty self-explanatory. It shows that the 30 years following the Second World War were a time of broadly shared prosperity: Income for the bottom 90 percent of American households roughly kept pace with economic growth.

But over the last 35 years, there's been an abrupt shift: Total growth has slowed marginally, but the real change has been in how the results of that growth are distributed. Now, the bottom 90 percent have seen their income rise only by a tiny fraction of total growth, while income for the richest 1 percent has exploded by upwards of 275 percent.

One can argue about why this is happening. Some say it's the result of a decline in workers' bargaining power as labor unions have weakened, while others blame the rise of offshoring and outsourcing. But despite the best efforts of some commentators, there's really no serious debate about the overall realignment of income in our age: The already super-rich have vastly increased their share of the pie--at the expense of everyone else.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich

The One-Percenters

By Roger Ebert on April 8, 2011 11:25 PM

resources_money.jpg"The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.

"Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent."

So I discover in a piece by Joseph E. Stiglitz in the new issue of Vanity Fair. These facts confirm my impression that greed is now seen as a virtue in America. I'm not surprised by the greed of the One-Percenters. I'm mystified by the lack of indignation from so many of the rest of us.

Day after day I read stories that make me angry. Wanton consumption is glorified. Corruption is rewarded. Ordinary people see their real income dropping, their houses sold out from under them, their pensions plundered, their unions legislated against, their health care still under attack. Yes, people in Wisconsin and Ohio have risen up to protest these realities, but why has there not been more outrage?

The most visible centers of these crimes against the population are Wall Street and the financial industry in general. Although there are still many honest bankers, some seem to regard banking and trading as a license to steal. Outrageous acts are committed and go unpunished. Consider this case of money laundering by Wachovia Bank, now part of Wells Fargo. This Guardian article reports: "The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveler's checks and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts."

The bank paid fines of less than 2% of its $12.2 billion profit in 2009. No individual was ever charged with a crime. We need not doubt that Wachovia executives received bonuses over the period of time when they were overseeing these illegal activities. Permit me to quote one more paragraph:

"More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4 billion -- a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product -- into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business."

If a third of the Mexican GNP passes through your bank and you don't ask the questions required by law, you are either (1) a criminal, or (2) incompetent. I can't think of another possibility.

Stories like this have become commonplace. Two of the most common types of news stories about banks recently have involved their losses, and the size of their executive bonuses. Bloomberg News reports: "JPMorgan Chase & Co. gave Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon a 51 percent raise in 2010 as the bank resumed paying cash bonuses following two years of pressure from regulators and lawmakers to curb compensation."

And here's more, from the Wall Street journal: "$57,031. That's about what the average U.S. archaeologist made last year. It's also what J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon made every day of last year -- $20.8 million total, according to the firm's proxy filing this week. Anyone who has doubts about the resiliency of Wall Street banks and brokerages should ponder that figure for awhile. The J.P. Morgan board also spent about $421,500 to sell Dimon's Chicago home. And they brought back the big cash bonus, doling out $30.2 million in greenbacks to Dimon and his top six lieutenants."

The CEOs of the venerable trading firms that were forced into bankruptcy were all paid bonuses. In a small recent case, executives of Borders intended to pay themselves $8 million in bonuses until a U. S. Trustee objected. A company spokesperson said, "The proposed programs were designed to retain key executives at Borders as we proceed through the Chapter 11 reorganization process." In short, retain those whose management bankrupted the corporation.

Corporations in theory are managed to benefit their shareholders. The more money Wal-Mart can make by busting unions and allegedly discriminating in its hiring practices, the happier its shareholders become. Yet obscene bonuses penalize even the shareholders. Isn't that, in theory, their money? Wouldn't it be decent for the occasional corporation to put a cap on bonuses and distribute the funds as dividends?

I have no objection to financial success. I've had a lot of it myself. All of my income came from paychecks from jobs I held and books I published. I have the quaint idea that wealth should be obtained by legal and conventional means--by working, in other words--and not through the manipulation of financial scams. You're familiar with the ways bad mortgages were urged upon people who couldn't afford them, by banks who didn't care that the loans were bad. The banks made the loans and turned a profit by selling them to investors while at the same time betting against them on their own account. While Wall Street was knowingly trading the worthless paper that led to the financial collapse of 2008, executives were being paid huge bonuses.

Wasn't that fraud? Wasn't it theft? The largest financial crime in American history took place and resulted in no criminal charges. Then the money industries and their lobbyists fought tooth and nail against financial regulation. The Republicans resisted it, but so did many Democrats. Partially because of the Supreme Court decision allowing secret campaign contributions, our political system is largely financed by vested interests.

We know that Bernie Madoff went to jail. Fine. No Wall Street or bank executive has been charged with anything. It will never happen. The financial industries are locked an unholy alliance with politicians and regulators, all choreographed by lobbyists. You know all that.

What puzzles me is why there isn't more indignation. The Tea Party is the most indignant domestic political movement since Norman Thomas's Socialist Party, but its wrath is turned in the wrong direction. It favors policies that are favorable to corporations and unfavorable to individuals. Its opposition to Obamacare is a textbook example. Insurance companies and the health care industry finance a "populist" movement that is manipulated to oppose its own interests. The billionaire Koch brothers payroll right wing front organizations that oppose labor unions and financial reform. The patriots wave their flags and don't realize they're being duped.

Consider taxes. Do you know we could eliminate half the predicted shortfall in the national budget by simply failing to renew the Bush tax cuts? Do you know that if corporations were taxed at a fair rate, much of the rest could be found? General Electric recently reported it paid no current taxes. Why do you think that was? Why do middle and lower class Tea Party members not understand that they bear an unfair burden of taxes that should be more fairly distributed? Why do they support those who campaign against unions and a higher minimum wage? What do they think is in it for them?

If it is "socialist" to believe in a more equal distribution of income, what is the word for the system we now live under? A system under which the very rich have doubled their share of the nation's income in 25 years? I believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Isn't that an American credo? How did it get twisted around into an obscene wage for shameless plunder?

One of the challenges facing the One-Percenters these days is finding ways to spend their money. Private residences grow as large as hotels, and are fitted out with the amenities of luxury resorts. Fleets of cars and private airplanes are at their owners' disposal. At work, they sink absurd mountains of money into show-off corporate headquarters that have less to do with work than with a pissing contest among rival executives. Private toilets grow as large as small condos, outfitted with Italian marbles and rare antiques. This is all paid for by the shareholders. One area of equality between the One-Percenters and the rest of us is that we sit on toilets of about the same size. What's different is the size of our throne rooms.

I find this extravagance unseemly in a democracy. Many of today's One-Percenters feel no more constraint than Louis XIV. A culture of celebrity has grown up around these conspicuous consumers, celebrating their excesses. I believe rewards are appropriate for those who have been successful. I also believe a certain modesty and humility are virtuous. I find it unbecoming that those who fight most against social welfare are those most devoted to their own welfare.

In America there is an ingrained populist suspicion of fats cats and robber barons. This feeling rises up from time to time. Theodore Roosevelt, who was elected as a Trust Buster, would be appalled by the excesses of our current economy. Many of the rich have a conscience. Andrew Carnegie built libraries all over America. The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations do great good. Bill Gates lists his occupation as "philanthropist."

Yet the most visible plutocrat in America is Donald Trump, a man who has made a fetish of his power. What kind of sick mind conceives of a television show built on suspense about which "contestant" he will "fire" next? What sort of masochism builds his viewership? Sadly, I suspect it is based on viewers who identify with Trump, and envy his power over his victims. Don't viewers understand they are the ones being fired in today's America?


http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/04/the_one-percenters.html

← Jon Stewart Does Glenn Beck Better Than Beck Does Senate Democratic Women Get Tough. Real Tough.