The Sad But True Story of Bottled Water

source: www.foodandwaterwatch.org

THE STORY OF BOTTLED WATER

Sarah's Greed and Tea Party's Dishonesty

  

On Monday the "Tea Party" president, Judson Phillips and many Tea Party supporters  urged Sarah Palin to take over as the chair of the debt-ridden Republican National Party.

They offered two reasons. One was her pop-star recognition and the second was her fundraising ability -- a major issue for the RNC.

What in the name of Hades were these people thinking? There was no way in hell this woman was going to take a job raising money for anyone but herself. Remember this is the woman who resigned in mid-term as the governor of Alaska to personally cash in on the fact that McCain thought she could be vice president.  And "cash in" she has. What with two books she "wrote," reality show appearances, speaking engagements, dragging her daughter onto "Dancing with the Stars,"  she has accumulated mega bucks, making the abandoned governor's position look like chicken feed.  Again, I ask, why do her Tea Party supporters think she would give up her personal quest of money for the sake of the GOP?


This is  part of Sarah's response: "...the primary role of the RNC chair seems be that of fundraiser-in-chief, and there are others who would probably be much more comfortable asking people for money than I would be, and they would definitely enjoy it more." One cannot quarrel with that, she is much more comfortable and adept at amassing a personal fortune


By way of a footnote: the "Tea Party" insisted throughout the mid-term elections that they were neither Republican or Democrat. So why is it that they are now so concerned about the Republican National Committee? Me thinks the Tea Party was not telling the truth back in September and October.

House GOP's Cynical Approach to Energy Committee

      
 
above: Joe Barton
below: John Shimkus

It appears that the Republicans are considering Joe Barton and John Shimkus to chair the House energy committee next year. What a travesty! Shimkus says we don't need to worry about climate change, and Barton is the congressman who apologized to BP officials for harsh questions from other congressmen about the Gulf oil spill.


If either becomes the chair it will reinforce the public perception that energy policy for House Republicans means keeping the oil companies happy. And who knows, maybe that is the message they want to send. After the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the oil companies dumped tons of money into the Republican coffers and would be pleased to have someone like Barton or Shimkus heading the energy committee.

Susan Collins, Woman Up on DADT!

Collins and G. W. BUSH

In spite of the fact that this conversation has gone on for a minimum of sixteen years, that 70% of the military are in favor of it, that the Pentagon recommends it, and that the majority of the American citizens support it, Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, does not want to vote on the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" because she thinks the Senate needs to talk about "some more."


Obviously she plans to vote against it, but wants to delay the vote as long as possible. Come on Susan, woman up!

Chad Ochocinco and Sarah Palin?

               Chad Ochocinco (Johnson)                                            Evelyn Lozada


Due to his lackluster performance on the football field, Chad Ochocinco 
has not been in the news recently and that  drives him crazy. He has done almost everything possible to get his name in the news, including participating in "Dancing with the Stars," but his publicity cache has diminished. Therefore, he had to play his last card; become engaged to a beautiful model, Evelyn Lozada. That should generate a new round of publicity & money for Chad.


But I think he has missed an opportunity. He could have gone on "Dancing with the Stars' with Bristol's mother, Sarah Palin. What an opportunity. Forget the beautiful model and team up with another publicity-seeker like yourself. 

Test for the Tea Party

          

If the Tea Party is serious about cutting the deficit, we will know by observing whether  they cut or eliminate farm subsidies -- a program that almost all agree is "Welfare for the Wealthy."


If they do eliminate farm subsidies, they would make a substantial statement on two fronts. First, they would indicate they are serious about reducing the deficit, and second, they would be demonstrating that they are not beholden to the undisclosed wealthy who financed their campaigns.


This issue comes close to home for some Tea Party Republicans. Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota wants to eliminate farm subsidies although her father-in-law has received $250,000 in subsidies within the last 15 years.


The newly elected congresswoman from Missouri, Hartzler,  wants to keep the program that has provided her and her husband $770,000 of  taxpayers' money in fifteen years.


Although Stephen Fincer, new GOP congressman from Tennessee, campaigned on cutting federal spending, he defends farm subsidies which have provided his family with $3.2 million in the last ten years.


We will know them (the Tea Party) by their works.


(Subsidy payments available at Environmental Working Group website.)

Confession of a NFL Nerd

                

A friend of mine, ala Jeff Foxworthy, has compiled a list entitled: "You might be a nerd if........" And, to my surprise, I learned that I am a nerd. One item on the list is: "You might be a nerd if you read a book while watching a football game." I plead guilty. 


In fact, I wonder why everyone doesn't read while watching an NFL game. A typical game lasts approximately three hours and in that period of time the viewer sees less than twenty minutes of actual football plays. That leaves two hours and forty minutes! Time that could be used to read a good book which would provide much more entertainment.

Deficit Commission more about Size of Gov. than Deficit

Read Kevin Drum's article to see why the Deficit Commission's Proposal is about cutting the size of the federal government, not the size of the deficit. 

Is the Deficit Commission Serious?

— By Kevin Drum

| Wed Nov. 10, 2010 8:46 PM PST

— President Barack Obama meets with Erskine Bowles and Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. | © Christy Bowe/Globe Photos/ZUMApress.com.

I've been trying to figure out whether I have anything to say about the "chairman's mark" of the deficit commission report that was released today. In a sense, I don't. This is not a piece of legislation, after all. Or a proposed piece of legislation. Or even a report from the deficit commission itself. It's just a draft presentation put together by two guys. Do you know how many deficit reduction proposals are out there that have the backing of two guys? Thousands. Another one just doesn't matter.

But the iron law of the news business is that if people are talking about it, then it matters. So this report matters, even though it's really nothing more than the opinion of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. So here's what I think of it, all contained in one handy chart from the Congressional Budget Office:

Here's what the chart means:

• Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."
• Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.
• Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

There are other reasons the Simpson-Bowles plan isn't serious. Capping revenue at 21% of GDP, for example. The plain fact is that over the next few decades Social Security will need a little more money and healthcare will need a lot more. That will be true even if we implement the greatest healthcare cost containment plan in the world. Pretending that we can nonetheless cap revenues at 2000 levels isn't serious.

And their tax proposal? As part of a deficit reduction plan they want to cut taxes on the rich and make the federal tax system more regressive? That's not serious either.

Bottom line: this document isn't really aimed at deficit reduction. It's aimed at keeping government small. There's nothing wrong with that if you're a conservative think tank and that's what you're dedicated to selling. But it should be called by its right name. This document is a paean to cutting the federal government, not cutting the federal deficit.

The USA Needs "The Disclose Act"

After the unprecedented amounts of undisclosed money spent on political advertising in the most recent mid-term elections, Americans of all political persuasions should demand the passage of THE DISCLOSE ACT.


It is estimated that in this election spending cost $4 billion, tens of millions undisclosed. (The 2000 Presidential election was $3.1 billion). In this election millionaire farmers from Ohio were able to donate as much as they wanted to Rob Portman without being identified. And of course they are hoping that good ol' Rob will help them continue to receive millions of dollars in agricultural subsidies -- a welfare program for the wealthy- a golden cow for corporations, even though the corporation might consist of two farmers.


As a result of the activist 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court (Citizens United), corporations are equated with individuals and entitled to give as much as they choose and not  required to disclose their identity.  With the absence of disclosure, it will be impossible to even question a "quid pro quo." Looks to me  much like legalized deal-making.


THE DISCLOSE ACT was passed by the House in June, but blocked by Senate Republicans.


If we want the rest of the world to look to us for the way democracy works, we have to pass this act or we will appear to have a plutocracy rather than a democracy.


If corporations want the same rights to free speech as individuals, they should have the cajones to identify themselves.

Tea Party: Do Your Home Work

Michele Bachmann

           Rep. Michele Bachmann and her Tea Party friends keep screaming that our country has to bow down and worship the Constitution of the United States. Not a bad idea. I'm all for it. But the problem is they want us to worship their version of the Constitution. It appears they are the anointed interpreters of what the Constitution "really" means. For example: Alaska Senate nominee Joe Miller says unemployment benefits are "unconstitutional;" Rand Paul, the new Republican senator from Kentucky questions the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; West Virginia Senate Nominee John Raese insists the minimum wage be eliminated; and some Tea Party candidates want to repeal amendments for the Federal Income Tax and the direct election of senators. Furthermore, contrary to the 14th Amendment,  Rand Paul wants to stop the US from granting citizenship to native-born children of  illegal immigrants. And of course, Sarah Palin says the Constitution "acknowledg(es) that our inalienable rights...come from God." (Both she and John Boehner have trouble distinguishing their documents.)


        Michele, Sarah and friends, just read what the document says. It is quite clear; you do not have to interpret it for us. Our Founding Fathers were much more proficient with the English language than you are; we do not need your obfuscations. Perhaps you should have paid attention to the teacher when you were in High School.