2012 US General Election Discussions: Start to Finish

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I'm waiting for the candidates to pick this one up.



Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills. But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone.

Last summer, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story shed some light on a government program that relatively few Americans knew existed. The Lifeline program provides low-income Americans with free cell phones (basic ones such as those made by Tracfone, not smartphones) and covers up to 250 free minutes each month. As many as 5.5 million residents in Pennsylvania alone could qualify for the program, which is funded primarily by the Universal Service Fund fee added to the bills of land-line and wireless customers.

The program came to be after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, and the FCC created the Universal Service Fund to help "to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates," among other things. All telecommunications carriers must pay into the fund, and many do so by tacking on a fee to each of their customers' bills. It's probably added into your monthly wireless bill and your landline bill, if you still have one.

The Universal Service Fund provides discounts on phone services, or in some cases, entirely free services to low-income Americans. The fund helps pay for landlines or cell phones, whichever the recipient prefers. There's also a one-time discount of up to $30 to cover an installation fee or a cell phone. Considering how cheap some cell phones are nowadays, the money more than covers the costs of a basic phone. Then, the fund covers phone bills to the tune of $10 a month, which typically translates as 250 minutes for wireless plans of the types of phones we're talking about. Americans who receive food stamps, Medicaid, or other federal aid, or who earn up to 135% of the federal poverty guidelines, qualify for the program.

Now, Bloomberg Businessweek reports, we have a pretty good idea of how much the program pays out -- and how quickly it's growing as more and more people find out about it. In 2011, Lifeline paid out $1.6 billion, more than double the amount paid in 2008 ($772 million).

What's more, an FCC audit of the program last year showed that many participants in the program were taking more than their fair share. According to Businessweek:

269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has been taking a closer look at the program since she personally received an invitation to apply for a free, government-subsidized cell phone in the mail. McCaskill has asked the FCC to investigate Lifeline. As a result, the FCC is building a database to see if a subscriber has more than one subsidized phone. In other words, until recently, such a database didn't exist.

The FCC, which announced the changes by using the euphemism that it is "modernizing" Lifeline, has set a goal of saving $200 million on the program in 2012. After eliminating nearly 270,000 of the duplicate subscriptions discovered in the audit last year, the FCC said it has already "saved" $33 million.

http://news.yahoo.com/washington-foo...202500656.html

Footing the bill for the poor to have a phone? These are the kinds of issues that need immediate attention. That's why we are on the brink of financial disaster. Between this and food stamps these poor people are living large. We need to take away their phones and cut food stamps at the very least. I mean there are people trying to scrape by on a mere $250,000 a year, a family of four can't be expected to survive on that! They need the government's help. They need tax breaks. We should have a fund so we can all pay in to help these guys struggling to survive on a quarter of a million dollars a year.
Oldie but a Goodie, Down and Out on 250000 a Year.

[AtLast]

It's CPAC convenstion time. A bunch of viagra filled old white Republican men meet and try to pick who among them is more Godly.....

[Kobi]

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama, in an abrupt policy shift aimed at quelling an election-year firestorm, announced on Friday that religious employers would not be required to offer free birth control to workers and the onus would instead be put on insurers.

But Catholic Church leaders and Obama's Republican opponents, who had railed against the Democratic president's new rule on contraceptives as a violation of religious freedom, signaled that divisions remain over the hot-button social issue.

The compromise by the Obama administration sought to accommodate religious organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, outraged by a new rule that would have required them to offer free contraceptive coverage to women employees.

Instead, the new approach puts the burden on insurance companies, ordering them to provide workers at religious-affiliated institutions with free family planning if they request it, without involving their employer at all, the White House said.

"Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women," Obama told reporters in the White House briefing room as he sought to put the political furor to rest.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called Obama's move a "first step in the right direction" but said it was still concerned about the issue and would reserve judgment.

Weighing in publicly on the issue for the first time, Obama acknowledged that religious groups had "genuine concerns" about the birth control rule, but he accused some of his opponents of a cynical effort to turn the issue into a "political football."

"The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services," Obama said. "But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptives just like other women."

The rule had sparked an outcry not only from Catholic leaders but from social conservatives, including Republican presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail, and had also sown dissent among some of Obama's top advisers.

Health insurance giant Aetna Inc said it would comply with the policy but needed "to study the mechanics of this unprecedented decision before we can understand how it will be implemented and how it will impact our customers."

Republicans seized on the issue, seeing a chance to paint Obama as anti-religion and put him on the defensive as signs of economic recovery appear to have re-energized his re-election bid.

The policy shift was aimed at preventing the issue from becoming a liability for Obama with Catholic voters, while at the same time trying not to anger his liberal base.

[Kobi]

Funny how politicians always go after "social programs" but never stuff like this:


You don't have to look very far to find the U.S. government wasting money. It's everywhere. It's where you think it is and in places where you'd never even think of looking. The government's wasteful spending habits go way beyond the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.

With a federal debt north of $15 trillion and projected annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion as far as the eye can see, it's clear that the federal government has difficulty controlling costs or living within a budget. If it can't cut the low-hanging fruit listed in this article, how can anyone expect the politicians to make tough reductions in spending?

These are seven ways that the U.S. government wasted tax dollars in 2011. For a more lengthy view, discover all 100 ways in Sen. Tom Coburn’s Wastebook.

$175,587 - Study on Cocaine and the Risky Sex Habits of Quail
Why quail? The reason is because they easily reproduce in a laboratory and provide an alternative to standard laboratory pigeons and rats. Apparently, the government felt the need to prove what numerous studies have already determined - that cocaine use may increase high-risk sexual behavior in humans. Worse yet, the study is slated to continue through 2015.

It only sounds more ridiculous when you learn that the first installment of $181,406 was received in 2010 from the National Institute of Health to see how cocaine boosted the sex drive of Japanese quail.

The NIH provided the money to the study in order to better understand the correlation between drug use, risky sexual behavior and the spread of STDs in inner city neighborhoods. It will also look at how drug use affects sexual motivation.

$550,000 - A Movie on How Rock 'n' Roll Helped Defeat Communism
This documentary, directed by Jim Brown, is scheduled for release in May 2012. The 90-minute documentary will focus on the arrival of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band in the Soviet Union during the late 1970s.

This was shortly after the release of their album Will the Circle be Unbroken, and the reception they received was reminiscent of the Beatles. Rock the Kremlin emphasizes the benefits of soft power and cultural diplomacy, and intends to show how music imported from the West contributed to ending the cold war.

$592,527 - Proving That Feces-Throwing Is a Communication Skill for Chimps
The purpose of this study was to determine why chimpanzees often throw feces and food at passersby and what that has to do with the neurological origins of communications among the species.

The money from the NIH National Institutes of Health was given to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (associated with Emory University). The study found that Iin the wild, chimps learn to throw objects to manipulate the control of other chimps and primates. At a cost of over half a million dollars, it was discovered that the chimps that excelled at throwing feces also had the best communication skills.

This is not the only primate related study to receive funding. Emory University is also studying handedness in primates and its correlation to reproductive success.

$742,907 - Study on Sheep Grazing to Control Weeds
The Department of Agriculture gave money to Montana State University to conduct the study and develop two courses that cover and explain the findings. While most of us already knew that sheep will munch on weeds, apparently three quarters of a million dollars were needed to authenticate the obvious.

Since it doesn't require chemicals, organic farmers can use sheep to clear their fields instead of tilling, which can subject the topsoil to blowing or washing away. They also discovered that sheep manure will act as a natural fertilizer. The American Sheep Industry Association sells a $25 handbook that contains the same information.

The grant was one of 23 awarded last year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture, totaling $19 million.

$765,828 - Pancakes for Yuppies
Your tax dollars were used to partially fund a new International House of Pancakes in the popular Washington, DC neighborhood of Columbia Heights. While the money was intended for an underserved community, it made its way to this shopping hotspot that also features other prominent retailers such as Best Buy and Target. The irony is that the funding came from the Department of Health and Human Services, which is currently fighting a war against obesity. The IHOP serves two items from Men's Health magazine's Top 20 Most Unhealthy Menu Items list.

The development money was given to the Anacostia Economic Development Corporation, an organization that promotes real estate and business development in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, DC. According to the Congressional Research Service, a majority of the funding was used as an equity injection into DC Pancakes LCC for a 19% stake in ownership.

$17,800,000 - Gifts to China
Over $1 trillion of the U.S. national debt is owed to China. So why are the Department of State and Agency for International Development giving millions of dollars to that country when it could be used to pay down the debt? About $4.4 million was used to improve China's environment and $2.5 million went to various social services. These are noble goals, but China can afford to pay its own way. While the U.S. debt now exceeds GDP, China's debt is only 26% of GDP.

$120,000,000 - Government Benefits for Dead People
The government has been paying the dead for a while, costing tax-payers more than $600 million over the past five years. Most of the money consists of retirement and disability payments to deceased federal employees. In one egregious example, a son cashed his dead father's checks for 37 years, totaling more than $500,000. This scam was only discovered when the son died and he was no longer around to cash the checks. None of the money was ever recovered.

The problem lies, ultimately, in the improper and often complete lack of, reporting regarding the deaths of former employees. Recommendations have been made to correct the issue, and some improvements have been made, though only partial improvements, at best. More work clearly needs to be done on this front.

The Bottom Line
The programs covered here are hardly national priorities and only scratch the surface of Washington's wasteful and frivolous spending habits. Despite claims from all political corners that earmarks and pork-barrel spending will no longer be tolerated, the reality is that the waste continues unabated.

As the debt continues to climb exponentially and the value of the dollar is further jeopardized, the need to eliminate waste is more compelling than ever. If that can't be done, there's little hope for achieving a balanced budget.

[Cin]

These people are so scary. The government is secular for a reason. The most frightening and inherently dangerous thing I can imagine is to be governed by a theocracy. But if this present batch of conservatives is any indication, that may be our future. It's really frightening and a bit nauseating to read their rabid reactionary religious rubbish. And apparently when I get nauseous and frightened I alliterate.

Republican candidates accuse Obama of declaring war on religion. 5 Big Lies About the Phony "War on Religion"

[Cin]

The Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to get around the holding of Citizens United, took SCOTUS’s statement that independent spending cannot corrupt and pointed to evidence that such spending has in fact corrupted in Montana. When the state of Montana loses this battle, and it will, they will have forced the U.S. Supreme Court into making it abundantly clear to all who are listening that they are uninterested and actively hostile toward state anti-corruption laws. It will be impossible to ignore the meaning behind the Supreme Court's ruling which is that all they are really interested in is that the wealthy and the corporations get to use their overwhelming, unequitable, and unfair percentage of the wealth to control elections.

Will anyone be listening? Can that government be saved, the one that is of the people, by the people, for the people and in real danger of perishing from the earth?

Montana Ban on Corporate Campaigning Heading to U.S. Supreme Court

Going for Broke in Montana Campaign Finance Case

Fact? We Don't Need No Stinking Facts: The Montana Supreme Court, SCOTUS, and Citizens United.

[AtLast]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ter_socialflow

Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception By Amanda Marcotte


After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.

That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.

My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.