posted August 11, 2010 11:20 PM         

In the greatest party-affiliation cover-up since the media tried to portray Gary Condit as a Republican, the media are refusing to mention the party affiliation of the thieving government officials in Bell, Calif.

There have been hundreds of news stories about Bell city officials' jaw-dropping salaries. In this poor city on the outskirts of Los Angeles, where the per capita annual income is $24,800 a year, the city manager, Robert Rizzo, had a salary of $787,637.

That's about twice what the president of the United States makes. (To be fair, Rizzo was doing a better job.)

Rizzo was the highest-paid government employee in the entire country, not counting Maxine Waters' husband -- pending further revelations. With benefits, his total annual compensation, according to the Los Angeles Times, came to $1.5 million a year.

Alerted to the Bell situation, the White House quickly added the Bell city manager to the list of jobs saved by its stimulus plan.

Not only that, but Rizzo was entitled to 28 weeks off a year for vacation and sick leave. To put that in perspective, that's almost as much vacation time as public school teachers get!

Reached in Spain, even Michelle Obama was outraged.

Rizzo responded to the anger over his preposterous salary by saying: "If that's a number people choke on, maybe I'm in the wrong business. I could go into private business and make that money."

(If he wants to grab one of those private-sector jobs that pays $1.5 million for 24 weeks of work, may I suggest the entertainment industry?)

Good luck to him. After leaving Bell, Rizzo will be lucky to land a job at Taco Bell. Before being anointed the King Tut of Bell, Rizzo was the city manager of Hesperia, Calif., where he was overpaid only to the tune of $78,000 a year.

The police chief, Randy Adams, was making $457,000 -- $770,046 including benefits. The assistant city manager, Angela Spaccia, had a $376,288 salary, with a total compensation package of $845,960. Being just an assistant city manager, Angela had to pay for her own yacht.

After the Los Angeles Times reported the stratospheric government salaries in little Bell, and the people of the town revolted, the millionaire government employees all resigned.

That'll show 'em! Oops, except upon their resignations, they qualified for lifetime pensions worth, by some estimates, more than $50 million.

These insane salary packages were granted by the mayor and four city council members -- who also set their own salaries. As a result, all but one was making $100,000 a year for these part-time jobs. After the council members' salaries came to light, the four looters cut their salaries by 90 percent.

According to Nexis, there have been more than 300 news stories reporting on the Bell scandal. Guess how many mentioned the party affiliation of the corrupt government bureaucrats?

One. Yes, just one. Now guess if the government officials were Democrats or Republicans? Yes, that is correct.
Congratulations -- you've qualified for our bonus round!

The one newspaper to cough up party affiliations, The Orange County Register, admitted that the corrupt officials were all Democrats only in response to reader complaints about the peculiar omission.

Lots of news stories on the scandal in Bell used the word "Democrat" or "Democratic." But that was only to say that the DEMOCRATIC attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, who is running on the DEMOCRATIC ticket for governor, is investigating the Bell officials' salaries.

So we know the media are aware of party affiliations. They just chose not to mention it when it would require them to identify shockingly corrupt government officials as Democrats
.
Any day now, the media will start describing Maxine Waters as "the light-skinned congresswoman from California."

(But you might want to vote for that DEMOCRATIC attorney general who is apparently a great crusader against corruption ... despite his years of ignoring the public employee salary and pension looting that has driven the state into insolvency.)

Maybe Obama's Czar of City Managers' Salaries could investigate this.

Unlike political corruption involving sex or bribery, the outrage in Bell isn't a scandal that hits both parties from time to time -- it's how the Democrats govern.

Elected Democratic officials bestow ludicrous salaries and benefits packages on government employees, and, in return, public employee unions make sure the Democrats keep getting re-elected.

posted August 12, 2010 11:54 AM         

More than three dozen of the wealthiest families and individuals in the United States have committed to giving away the majority of their wealth to charitable causes, since the "Giving Pledge" was launched by fellow billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett six weeks ago.

“We’ve really just started, but already we’ve had a terrific response,” said Warren Buffett, pledge co-founder and chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. “We’re delighted that so many people are doing just that – and that so many have decided to not only take this pledge but also to commit to sums far greater than the 50% minimum level.”

The United States has roughly 400 billionaires, about 40 percent of the world's total, according to Forbes. The 40 names that have pledged to date have a combined net worth surpassing $230 billion, reports MSNBC.

Wealthy Americans from around the country, from energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens to media tycoon Ted Turner, have taken the pledge. A full list of those 40 families and individuals, along with personal pledge letters submitted by people like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, filmmaker George Lucas, and David Rockefeller, are available online at www.givingpledge.org.

more... http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/most-popular/general/40-billionaires-join-giving-ple dge.html

yes they will get tax breaks for this. still a pretty generous bunch. and mostly, by your own declaration jwhop, democrats.

posted August 12, 2010 01:41 PM         

Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed US economy'

By Paul B. Farrell

We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.

(And he oughta know.) http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/205067.html

posted August 12, 2010 02:34 PM         

Please, who writes this drivel.

I never heard of Paul B. Farrell

Oh, and by the way, his bio says nothing about any position in the Reagan administration.

Someone,...guess who,...has a book he's hawking and needed a catchy title.

Here's some more catchy titles for you.

The Obama Nation

Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality

The Case Against Barack Obama

The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate

Fleeced

Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio
the Do-Nothing Congress

Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies

Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild

Hey, no need for these wealthy elites to donate to charity. O'Bomber's policies are going to bankrupt them along with the rest of America.

How nice, we'll all be in the same sinking boat.

posted August 12, 2010 03:12 PM         

however the rockefeller foundation - started when the rockefellers were republicans - which is also a good tax shelter, has done plenty for the less well-off. and so will these guys. if charity helps them with their taxes i have little beef with that.

but as you yourself have noted, they are mostly democrats and they are giving away tons to the rest of us.

i figured you wouldn't swallow the reagan thing. i mean, how could god almitey have fleeced us and put us in debt?? especially a republican?

posted August 12, 2010 04:55 PM         

Hey, I didn't bring up Farrell...and call him a "Reagan Insider" and a "Leading Reagan Republican". You did.

He's neither.

He's hawking a book pure and simple and whatever he says should be taken with a very large dose of salt.

John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush made the economy boom...for years and they all did it the same way.

Lower taxes, get the hell out of the way and let the private sector create the wealth and jobs which benefits everyone in America. Wealth creation also makes more money flow into the public treasury.

posted August 12, 2010 05:24 PM         

-- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10

a little expansion from the article written by farrell:

"Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:

Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase." "

sounds like he is trying to say what i have been trying to tell you. both sides are ******* up and there's no point blaming either one exclusively - or demonizing either one.

posted August 13, 2010 12:03 PM         

I recall that at the front end of the Bush administration his Treasury Sec, Paul O'Neill, wanted to raise taxes..to deal with the Clinton recession.

Bush overruled O'Neill and he either quit or was fired. The rest is history.

The history of tax cuts for individuals and businesses is that MORE REVENUES ARE FORTHCOMING TO THE FEDERAL TREASURY..NOT LESS.

The history of tax increases on individuals and businesses is that LESS TAX REVENUE IS FORTHCOMING TO THE FEDERAL TREASURY.

When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush reduced taxes it created an economic boom, tax revenues to the government increased and lots of wealth was created by private enterprise which benefitted everyone.

David Stockman is provably WRONG...just as Paul O'Neill was WRONG.

Lowering taxes on individuals and businesses is like fertilizing the field. You get MORE of what you want. In this case, tax revenues.

So, let's have a look at what the blockhead Marxist O'Bomber has done and wants to do.

He talks non-stop about raising taxes on high income earners and businesses...and has already raises taxes with more to follow.

Result...tax revenues to the Federal Treasury ARE DOWN, there's a stagnant/declining economy, no one wants to invest to expand their businesses or hire anyone.

The Marxist Socialist O'Bomber is doing exactly what I said he would do before the elections in 2008...and is producing exactly what I said he would produce before the elections in 2008.

posted August 13, 2010 12:10 PM         

when obama hints that the richest will have to pay 3% more to contribute to the economy he is bankrupting us.

posted August 13, 2010 05:45 PM         

But those oil leases are on Alaska land...owned by the citizens of Alaska.

Sarah Palin just got the citizens of Alaska a fair price for the oil and natural gas the oil companies extract off their land.

Fiscal Facts
In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The top 10% of earners pay more than 71% of all income taxes in America.

How much is "Their Fair Share" katatonic?

How much is the "Fair Share" of those in the bottom 47% of earners...who pay nothing whatsoever?

posted August 13, 2010 07:50 PM         

but my story is not relevant to yours. last year you were saying the bottom half paid no tax at all. you obviously have not made that kind of money in a long time. many of those people DO pay tax. they are not smart enough or don't have enough leftover cash to pay the accountants who work the loophole market. excuse me "business expense" market.

but the top 10% earn/own 70% of the wealth. why should they get a special discount?

and please try to understand. like that joke where the poor man is complaining that he spends HALF his income on FOOD, and the rich man who replies "that's where you go wrong, i only spend 5% of my income on food!!" the math is not straight forward across the board.

like the landlord that thought i needed 3X the yearly rent for income, who just couldn't compute that HALF my income was plenty for my lifestyle so i could afford it, YOU don't seem to realize that the top 10% have a lot more left over when the percentage of their income paid to taxes is higher than the poor have to BEGIN WITH.
[that landlord did me a huge favour. i got a much better place for a good deal less a week later]

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111232

US wealth distribution: 10% of US citizens own 70.9% of all US assets
Submitted by wd4freedom on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 11:45
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Top 1% own 38.1%
Top 96-99% own 21.3%
Top 90-95% own 11.5%
And it gets much uglier as you proceed downward. Bottom 40% of population has 0.2% of all wealth.

The founders equated freedom to liberty which in their language meant you "owned" property (you were not in debt). The amount of property you owned had a proportional relationship to the amount of liberty you experienced.

Our system of freedom is skewed and is becoming very dangerous (approx. 100 million US citizens experience ZERO freedom). You can only cage humans for so long and then something has to give. When liberty is skewed into the hands of a very small number of the population, then our ability to "self-govern" becomes a complete and utter illusion.

I believe in free markets, but this distribution of wealth is not a normal distribution in any way (meaning it is not subject to natural forces- i.e. statistics 101). It can only exist within an un-natural (non-free) system, where the relative nature of freedom is constrained.

why SHOULDN"T they pay more? they earn more, own more, and enjoy the benefits more.

posted August 13, 2010 11:09 PM         

The top 10% of earners DO PAY MORE. They pay a hell of a lot more.

You didn't answer my question.

posted August 14, 2010 01:14 PM         

Analysis suggests that, in reality, ERTA resulted in the largest reduction in federal revenues of any tax bill since World War II. The federal budget deficit continued to grow and the very next year, in 1982, the largest peacetime tax increase was passed. The Act repealed some of the more revenue-reducing provisions of ERTA, such as accelerated depreciation reductions for corporations, and closed several corporate loopholes in the tax code. Social Security reforms were enacted in 1983 that increased Social Security tax rates and initiated taxation of some benefits http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States

i haven't ever said they don't pay more. i have said that "lower taxes = more revenue" is bunk. as above.

i think, in times of major financial stress, that those who have profitted most in the past, can give something back in the form of a little extra. i don't necessarily think it should be permanent but history has shown that the rich thrive in much higher tax brackets. those reductions by kennedy et al still left the top bracket at a much higher percent than today.

posted August 14, 2010 11:36 PM         

This sounds like such a nice little leftist theory katatonic that it's a shame it's pure unadulterated horseshiiit.

As is usual when leftist nuts attempt to attack tax cuts they never use any numbers taken from actual historical records. They just make it up as they go along.

These are statements of fact drawn from US treasury records which are kept and available.

"HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/03/The-Real-Reagan-Economic-Record#pgfId-1122238

Of course, one must suppose O'Bomber and the leftist cadre of Marxists he's surrounded himself with can't read or don't know where to get the facts.

O'Bomber is doing exactly what Roosevelt did which extended the depression for almost 7 years.

O'Bomber is doing exactly what Japan did which caused a long standing economic depression/recession known as the "Lost Decade" in economic circles.

Fortunately, help is on the way in less than 3 months and O'Bomber is going to get his wings clipped.

posted August 15, 2010 12:39 PM         

The federal budget deficit continued to grow and the very next year, in 1982, the largest peacetime tax increase was passed.

and let's not ignore the fact that the SOCIAL SECURITY TAX went UP during the reagan years and therefore even the poorer wage earners were contributing more...in fact due to the "ceiling" on SSI a good deal more relative to their pay. http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

also let's not forget that for MOST of the 80s the top marginal tax rate was more like 50%, a good deal higher than obama is suggesting ...or the fact that government spending increased far more than revenues and there was a couple of trillion dollar deficit when he left office.
Only in 1988 and 1989 (Ronald Reagan's final 13 months in office) was the TOP MARGINAL rate down to 28%. It was 69.13% when he went into office, and went from 69.13%-50% from 1981-1986, then 38.5%, then 28%.

Barack Obama has proposed a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, which was the rate under Bill Clinton. So with the exception of 13 months of Reagan's time in office, Obama's rate is lower than Reagan's.

Read on for more...

mbzoltan's diary :: ::
Furthermore, really look at those rates. Take the Tax Policy Center's historical top marginal tax rate chart. Under previous Republicans:

Taft: (1909-1913)--income tax began in 1913 at 7% for top rate
Harding: (1921-1923): 56%-73%
Coolidge (1923-1929): 24%-56%
Hoover (1929-1933): 24%-63% (63% after Roosevelt took power)
Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%
Nixon (1969-1974): 70-77%
Ford: (1974-1977): 70%
Reagan (1981-1989): 28%-69.13%
Bush I: (1989-1993): 28%-39.6% (39.6% after Clinton took power) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/30/133546/05/920/646919

posted August 15, 2010 01:06 PM         

It's utter foolishness to argue against the historical record but that's the hallmark of leftists and dailykooks is about as far left as the nutty left gets.

The historical record shows the Reagan tax cuts not only increased income tax revenues to the federal government but also increased revenues to the federal treasury from all sources.

In addition to those historical facts, the Reagan Tax Cuts sparked the longest peace time boom in the US economy in history.

The Bush Tax Cuts...which the brain dead Socialist Progressive demoscats want to expire also produced more tax revenue to the feceral government.

O'Bomber's policies of blathering about tax increases on individuals and businesses coupled with the rest of his Marxist Progressive agenda have produced such uncertainty among Americans and businesses that TAX REVENUES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE DOWN SHARPLY.

posted August 17, 2010 08:43 AM         

You want to talk about the Reagan deficits of 220 Billion (highest of 8 years) when your Marxist idol O'Bomber is running Trillion dollar + defitics every year for the next ten years???

posted August 17, 2010 09:16 AM         

quote:

---

In 1981, shortly after taking office, Reagan lamented "runaway deficits" that were then approaching $80 billion, or about 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Within only two years, however, his policies had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than $200 billion, or 6 percent of GDP.

"It was an experiment," said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley. "No one before Reagan had ever run such huge deficits during peacetime. He showed that you could smile and tell everyone not to worry and, politically, no one will call you to account."

---

"This lesson clearly wasn't lost on the current (2004) occupant of the White House, who has followed the Reagan economic playbook virtually step by step in taking a budget surplus and turning it into a deficit this year of more than $520 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP.

quote:

---

"It was up to the first President Bush, the loyal soldier, to clean up the mess by raising taxes, and he didn't get re-elected because of it," Auerbach observed. "Clinton also had to raise taxes because of Reagan."

Over time, the Reagan deficit became the Clinton surplus. We may not be as fortunate, though, in our efforts to sweep away the current Bush deficit. The looming retirement of millions of Baby Boomers, Auerbach noted, will soon place a huge burden on government coffers.

---

the widely held views before the orchestrated 'Meltdown'

Partisan Politicos,
those that write the Neocon playbook,
those that swing like a tea bag
the birther lot...

started blaming Obama in December of 2008

posted August 17, 2010 09:47 AM         

be it 2, 8, or 10 years in the past,

posted August 17, 2010 11:34 AM         

I find it terribly amusing that some conservatives have latched onto the deficit as their key issue, when they took the idea of deficit spending to great new heights! Whether you are looking at the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, reining in the deficit was clearly of no concern. (Forget speechifying, I refer to actual policies).
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/deficit-chicken-hawks-vs-ronald-reagan/

posted August 17, 2010 11:49 AM         

I'm sure they don't teach this in leftist schools Node but part of those Reagan deficits came from spending our cold war enemy, the Soviet Union into oblivion.

The communist Soviet Union..."on the ash heap of history"...as Ronald Reagan said.

I'm sure they don't teach this in leftist schools Node but Reagan actually signed on for tax increases along with all those tax cuts. He had what he thought was a "deal" with demoscats in congress to cut 3 dollars in spending for every dollar of tax increase.

demoscats lie and that didn't happen.

All these things contributed to the budget deficits.

However, it's funny, more funny than you know when leftists complain about 200 Billion dollar budget deficits under Ronald Reagan....BUT DON'T BAT AN EYE OR UTTER A PEEP ABOUT THE 1.4 TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICITS COURTESY OF O'BOMBER.

Btw, those Trillion dollar budget deficits reach into the future for the next 10 years at least.

Leftists crack me up. They swallow a battleship without a burp but gag on a mite.

Is that crazy...or what?

"Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 -- $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good "70 percent" deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

posted August 17, 2010 12:08 PM         

"Once upon a time, there was a President. He was elected in the middle of a recession, following an economic crisis and a decade long bear market".

You need to get your act up to speed. It's not ready to take on the road just yet.

Once upon a time there was a president elected on the platform of "Hope and Change". "Today, he said, is the day the oceans stop rising and the planet begins to heal". "WE are the ONES WE"VE been Waiting For."

One of his advisors went on national television and proclaimed..."This president is ready to RULE from day one".

Rule over Americans he did, cramming legislative bill after legislative bill down the throats of Americans and over their objections, Americans who wanted no part of the presidents far left agenda.

Then, a strange thing happened. Americans began to see through the presidents Hope and Change rhetoric, his job approval numbers fell out of the sky, those in congress who helped the president ram through his far left agenda had their own job approval numbers hit the lowest level ever recorded.

Now, the president's little helpers in congress are frightened out of their wits at the prospect of losing their congressional offices in the next election. They're actually running away from the president at every opportunity and refuse to be seen with the president when he comes to their state or congressional district.

Too late, this president and his little helpers in congress are going to find out what happens when they attempt to RULE over the American people instead of Govern with their consent.

The End.

posted August 17, 2010 02:24 PM         

and the old saw about how poor ronnie always believed the dems and they always lied...tired. as to obama facing opposition in congress come november, i believe that ALSO happened to ronnie, and MOST presidents who came in on heavy majorities. it's called checks and balances as i recall from history class.