About Me

Name: 1deciple
Email: 1deciple@charter.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

In Case You Can't Find It...

(I want to be sure readers of my blog aren't hasseled by trying to find an obscure URL to read something I've referred to, so I've decided to simply place Governor Huckabee's article here for your convenience.)

Why I commuted Maurice Clemmons's sentence

By Mike Huckabee
Monday, December 7, 2009 2:22 PM

The nation was stunned by the senseless and savage cold-blooded murders of four young police officers in Lakewood, Wash., over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Whenever a police officer or soldier is killed, the loss is even more profound, for they are the ones who stand between our way of life and total anarchy.

Nine years ago, the name Maurice Clemmons crossed my desk. I commuted his sentence from 108 years to 47 years. I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago. I acted on the facts presented to me in 2000. If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision. If I only had the same information I had then, I would make the same decision.

Each state is different, but in Arkansas, a governor doesn't initiate a parole -- the Post Prison Transfer Board (PPTB) does so after it conducts a thorough review of an inmate's file and request. The board then makes a recommendation to the governor, who decides to grant or deny it.

If the decision is made to grant any form of clemency (the broad term for a commutation or a full pardon), the governor gives notice of intent, and the file is sent to the prosecutor, judge, law enforcement officials, the attorney general and the secretary of state, as well as to the news media. A period of 30 days is allotted for these officials and the public to weigh in, at which point the final decision is rendered.

Despite news reports, no objections were raised during the 30-day response period for this case. In fact, only letters of support for Clemmons' commutation were received, including one from the circuit judge.

Between 1,000 and 1,200 requests for some form of clemency came to my desk each and every year of the 10 and a half years I was governor. An overwhelming majority of the time, I denied the requests. When I did grant them, it was based on the recommendations of all five of the members of the PPTB, with consideration given to input from public officials and my own personal review of each and every file.

Maurice Clemmons was 16 years old when he committed the crimes of burglary and robbery. He was sentenced to a total of 108 years in prison, dramatically outside the norm for sentencing for the crimes he committed and the age at which he committed them.

In 2000, the PPTB unanimously recommended that his sentence be commuted after he had already served 11 years in prison. As per the recommendation, I commuted his sentence to the term of 47 years (still a long sentence in comparison to others for the type of crime he had committed), making him parole eligible. It did not parole him, as governors do not have that power in Arkansas. He would have to separately apply for parole and meet the criteria for it.

Three months after the commutation, Clemmons met the criteria for parole and was paroled to supervision in late 2000. When he violated the terms of his parole, he was returned to prison and should have remained behind bars. For reasons only the prosecutor can explain, he ended up dropping the charges, allowing Clemmons to leave prison and return to supervised parole.

Clemmons moved to his native Washington State and engaged in intermittent criminal activity that increased in violence and frequency. He was arrested on charges of raping a child, yet was allowed to post bail in Washington. While out on bail, he committed the unspeakable acts of murdering four valiant police officers.

I can't explain why he wasn't prosecuted properly for the parole violations, or why he was allowed to make bail in Washington and was not incarcerated earlier for crimes committed there. I take responsibility for my actions, but not for the actions of others, nor for the misinformed words of commentators.

The two professions I value most in our society are soldiers and police officers, with firemen and schoolteachers right behind. The death of the four officers in Lakewood should never have happened. I wish Maurice Clemmons' file had never crossed my desk. But it did. The decision I made is one I now wish could have been made with a view into the future. That decision would have been different.

None of this is of any comfort to the families of these police officers, nor should it be. Their loss is senseless. No words or deeds by anyone will bring them back to their loved ones. Our system is not perfect, and neither are those responsible for administering it. The system and those of us who are supposed to make sure it works sometimes get it wrong. In this case, we clearly did.

Mike Huckabee was governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007.

© 2009 Creators Syndicate.

Note: So many in the Biased, lying, left-wing, lame-stream media are telling this incorrectly, I felt I had a responsibility to publish it on my blog at least so at least some could get it right.  When I Googled the topic, I was appalled at the crap and bogus information that was already out there about this.  Unfortunately, there are many who would do anything to discredit and demonize Governor Huckabee, because, frankly, they are scared to death of him!

1deciple
Arthur Bruce Robertson

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tom Tancredo stoops to new low in Politics.

In his "Border Battlelines" Commentary, "Willie Clinton, Willie Horton and Huckabee" (WorldNet Daily, Dec.5, 2009), Tom Tancredo accuses Mike Huckabee of "spin" in explaining his reasons for commuting the 108 year sentence of then, 16 year old Maurice Clemmons, who was charged at the time with burglary and grand larceny, and who's commutation to a 47 year term was even recommended by the presiding Judge in the case.  Tancredo won't tell you that.

In a clearly shameless effort to discredit Mr. Huckabee, and create the impression that he is 'soft' on crime and unjustly prejudice the reader against him, Tancredo twice deliberately mis-characterizes Mr. Huckabee's actions in the case, stating: "Clemmons is not the first future murderer to be let go by Huckabee. In 1998,
he let loose convicted rapist Wayne DuMond, who went on to murder Carol Sue Shields."  (emphasis mine)  Neither of those phrases can be correctly applied to the truth.

At best, it is safe to say, Tancredo is playing loose with the facts here, and he knows it.  It is very obvious what he is doing, and he should be ashamed of himself for using the journalist's forum provided him by WorldNetDaily.com to push his personal vendetta against a man he happens to have a personal dislike for, in an effort to sabotage any possible political aspirations Mr. Huckabee may have for a future run at the Presidency.

  One has only to analyze the opening statement of the piece to discern his motives: "It's safe to say that Mike Huckabee's presidential future is done.  The nail in the coffin is the revelation that as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee commuted the sentence of serial felon Maurice Clemmons, who recently gunned down four police officers in cold blood in Washington state".  He then proceeds to place the blame for the deaths of the four officers squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Huckabee, a grossly unfair charge to lay at the feet of an honorable man, who was only attempting to correct what appeared to be a terrible injustice, at the time. 

The punishment prescribed for the sixteen year old defendant (108 years) simply did not fit the crime: burglary and robbery.  Furthermore, at the time the request to reduce the sentence to 47 years came to Governor Huckabee, Clemmons had already served eleven years of his sentence.  Mr. Huckabee had received many letters from people all over the State, pointing out the gross mis-carriage of justice in the Clemmons case, given his age and the crimes involved.  And, not a single objecting voice was heard, suggesting Huckabee should deny the commutation.

No,  the only "spin" to this story is all Tancredo's, as paragraph after paragraph, quote after quote, he builds his case, ignoring the whole story of course, dismissing important facts,  in an effort to undermine any Presidential qualities the reader might possibly have been considering in Mr. Huckabee.  Is this "payback" for Gov. Huckabee's superior showing in the 2008 primaries, which eliminated his own Presidential aspirations?

Again, totally mischaracterizing the facts, in the last paragraph, Tancredo paints Huckabee as having 'an open borders position on immigration': "He called a plan to deny welfare to illegal aliens "un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life."(emphasis mine) This is a gross twisting of the truth.   So, what has any of that got to do with the Clemmons case, other than to further smear the character of Mr. Huckabee?  What a piece of journalistic garbage!   For the record, at issue was benefits for the children of workers already in Arkansas illegally, not welfare for illegal aliens.

 What a shameful hatchet job!  What a disgrace to the usual high standards of WorldNet Daily.com.  Tancredo should be writing for purepolitics.com. They would appreciate his gift for distorting, twisting, rearranging and creating false images.  Tom Tancredo, you are unworthy of the space Joseph Farah gave you at WorldNetDaily.com.  I hope he takes it away from you. America was right to totally disregard you as a Presidential candidate.  You aren't worthy of carrying Mr. Huckabee's umbrella!

1deciple



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Nomination for Political Cartoon of the Year!

It's by Nate Beeler of the Washington (DC) Examiner, and it was published 12/04/09 right after the non-event described as the White House Jobs Summit.  The cartoon says it all!!  I wish I could bring the photo here to my blog, but apparently TownHall doesn't let you do that. 
It depicts the White House crowd, standing atop mounting deficits, with their heads in the clouds, clamoring for still further government spending and stimulus programs (like the ones that have already failed so miserably) to create more jobs.

If you want to laugh till you cry (I did), click the link below, for the Beeler cartoon page right here on TownHall.com. then click the 'Summit' cartoon to size it up full size.

http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/NateBeeler/2009/12/a0a378fb-47ef-4a49-8b22-6eddc706dda2
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Freedoms Lost to Mis-Information Can Be Regained!

 I just discovered a real jewel that parents of kids in Public Schools, as well as teachers and all others concerned with issues of Free Speech vs Separation of Church & State will be vitally interested in. It's on the Rutherford Institute Web-site, and consists of a six-part piece you can read/print out with encouraging, factual information about Christian student’s rights under current law. It also includes a comprehensive 17 page report in PDF format that you can save to file for whatever use you need. The report details the history of case law involving suits brought against various forms of religious expression in public school contexts since the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling that established the so-called ‘separation of church and state’.  

The Report speaks of
increasingly common and widely publicized lawsuits involving a raging constitutional debate over the place of religion in public life. This fear—the fear of being sued—has prompted many public school officials across the country to implement restrictions that effectively banish expressions of religious faith from our public schools” The Report says that Invariably, concerns about violating the so-called “separation of church and state” are cited as the justification for school officials’ actions…” “But such cases are evidence of a disappointing reality about many Americans’ level of commitment to the fundamental freedoms that are the hallmark of our society.”  The point is made that “By driving the expression of individual students’ religious ideas from the schoolhouse, we teach our nation’s youth that our fear of violating the Constitution—or worse, our fear of allowing someone to feel uncomfortable—is greater than our commitment to the freedoms that it protects. We teach them that it is better to suppress freedom than to take a chance of giving too much of it.”

Summarizing the conditions prompting their report, the Rutherford Institute says the following:  The expression of ideas—even, perhaps especially, religious ones—is important to the development of society. As one commentator notes: “Encouraging cognitive conflict and expressive behavior in the school not only forces students to express their own judgments or opinions, but also serves the first amendment goals of self-fulfillment, enlightenment,and preparation of children for participation in a democratic society.” These goals will undoubtedly be thwarted if we continue to suppress religious expression in public schools. It is no answer to say that students can learn these invaluable lessons elsewhere. Our children spend the overwhelming majority of their waking hours at school or school-related events. School is their society.

To forbid their religious expression at school is to leave students little, if any, meaningful outlet for such expression. Clearly, the only way to foster a school environment that is consistent with both the spirit and letter of the First Amendment is to encourage full student expression in the public school system, subject only, of course, to the school’s (and society’s) legitimate interest in maintaining order and safety. Unfortunately, even educators who recognize this often feel constrained by the threat of lawsuits. 

There is, however, good news. In most situations, the perceived conflict between the so-called separation of church and state and students’ free speech and free exercise rights is a matter of misperception. In other words, educators and administrators need not be motivated by legal fears when making decisions regarding student religious expression. In the words of one federal judge, “Free speech, free exercise, and the ban on establishment are quite compatible when the government remains neutral and educates the public about the reasons.”
 

I'm going to print it out for local friends who are in various positions of authority in Public Education in the area where I live. This material is EXTREMELY helpful, because it clears up much fear induced mis-information which has inhibited perfectly permissible religious expression/use of public school facilities in recent years. I urge everyone who has a connection with Public education to avail yourselves of this free information. I'm pasting in a link to the Rutherford Institute Webpage below:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id... 

1deciple
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The “800lb Health Care Gorilla” in the Room

 Congressional and Senatorial leaders are supposedly trying to bring down out-of-control costs of health care. It is strange to me that I haven’t heard more about the actual, every-day costs for services being charged by providers, all of whom are contributing to the soaring increases in health care costs we are dealing with today. Has anyone ever considered commissioning a team of professionals from the best business management companies in the nation to study the health care industry, and make recommendations to Congress on what they might realistically do to improve things? For instance, recommend realistic and reasonable charges for services?

Since providers of health services are ‘private sector’ entrepreneurs, I’m not sure what control Government has over them, in terms of what they can charge, but certainly the Congress can control what Medicare and Medicaid will pay for services to patients they are responsible for. In my opinion, these agencies have been much too liberal, and probably are partly responsible for increasing the standard for fees and charges of many medical services over the years. If this were not so, bills would not have risen to the point of absolute absurdity that we find them today.

Can anyone truly legitimize a cost of almost $6000 for five hours in an emergency room, most of which was waiting for results of four tests?   Patient went to emergency room on advice of her physician for a simple Electrocardiogram, because she had a ‘strange’ sensation in her chest. She needed to know if she was having a heart attack, or if the EKG indicated any legitimate need for additional testing. The administering technician informed her that the EKG ‘looked’ normal. (EKG 5minutes $482) The ER physician then claimed to see a ‘minor’ anomaly that warranted additional testing: Chest X-Ray 10minutes $241, three or four vials of blood drawn for lab analysis $1311, CT Scan 20minutes $2185, Emergency Room Fee $1307, Drugs Administered in Emergency Room $258, ER Physician Fee $987-Total Charges $6,771!

The example above was real, recent, and it was a Medicare/Advantra patient. Had the hospital involved not expected payment from Medicare somewhere close to the amount billed, or even 60% of the amount, I’m sure they would not have billed it. Two points: First, the charges were over the top excessive, and second, once the EKG indicated no heart attack, the tests, according to a highly regarded cardiologist, were inappropriate. In today’s medicine, and given the age and condition of the patient, a heart catheterization was the surest way to diagnose and determine care for her. Eventually, this procedure was used, revealing a blockage that was corrected by installation of a stint. Had the patient started with this Cardiologist to begin with, Medicare would have been spared the first $5700 for tests that were questionable at best and probably unnecessary.

To be fair, I’m not singling out hospitals here. I don’t know what the Cardiologist in the example above charged, but a recent heart catheterization I knew of was billed at $12,000, also to a Medicaid patient. Both procedures took less than one hour in the operating room.  Can there be any reasonable justification for such a charge?  Even if you allow for the legitimate complaints of Physicians and Surgeons that up to $200,000 of their cost of doing business can be malpractice insurance, I doubt such a fee is justifiable.  No one can argue with the need to address the need for tort reform either, in the overall effort to reduce the costs of health care.  But that's another
topic for another article. 

1deciple

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prop 8-Still Being Mis-Nomered

Prop 8 was not about anyone's rights.  It was not about banning anything.  It was about affirming a previous initiative, Prop 22 of 2000, containing fourteen words that were agreed to by over four million California voters, which defined marriage in the State of California.  In order to do this, and to insulate the traditional definition of marriage from further compromise by the courts, Prop 8 provides the following fourteen words to be added to the State Constitution. 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'  That’s it.  That is all Prop 8 said, and that’s what California voters, by majority vote, have added to their State Constitution.  It became necessary when four activist, unelected judges took it upon themselves to disenfranchise those four million voters by declaring Prop 22 invalid.  The issue is whether the traditional definition of marriage continues to best serve the culture of America today, or if it should be scrapped in favor of whatever anyone wants to call marriage.

  That's the issue, and voters of California have clearly spoken, twice.  Marriage is now and always has been a legally recognized union of a man and a woman, who ostensibly commit themselves for life to each other and to the offspring of their union.  It's the foundation for a family and the basic building block of human society.  In fact, the vast majority of Americans consider marriage a Sacrament instituted by God Himself which binds a man and a woman together for life.  For thousands of years, entire cultures have depended on this model of marriage for their very existence, and ninety eight percent of the people of America--even those in California--realize the importance of keeping the definition intact.

  I should mention, the original wording on the Prop 8 ballot contained the same, simple fourteen words previously approved by Prop 22 in 2000.  It was the opponents of Prop 8, who persuaded Attorney General Jerry Brown and Secretary of State Debra Bowen to change the measure to add: "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY", terminology clearly intended to inject a strong element of negative bias against the measure in the very ballot voters would be using to express their opinion on the issue.  This is the source for the 'ban on same-sex marriage' characterization.  If you want to call Prop 8 a "ban", call it the Brown-Bowen Ban on Same-Sex Marriage, but please make it clear that the people of California did not impose a 'ban'.  What they did do was:

(1) Override an arbitrary and outrageous decision by four presumptuous Federal judges, which had negated the will of over four million      California voters who previously approved Prop 22 of 2000.

(2) Reaffirm the traditional definition of Marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

(3) Enshrine that definition into their State Constitution

Passage of Prop 8 did not 'strip legal rights' from homosexuals.  Under California law, domestic partners already have all of the benefits of married couples.  The only thing it denied them is the legitimacy they think the institution of marriage would give to their otherwise licentious and socially destructive lifestyles.  For them, ‘Married’ replaces ‘abominable’ with ‘acceptable’, and they intend to gain that acceptance by any means necessary, including intimidation, character assassination, terrorism and even brute force, all of which has been demonstrated.   

In the interest of honest and objective journalism, I would like to see all future references to Prop 8 read, “The California Constitutional Amendment Affirming the Traditional Definition of Marriage”.  After all, that’s precisely what it is.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Heart Pain My Bypasses Didn't Fix

Aging effects the heart in ways my surgeon can't help.  Or, to put it differently, there's more to the pain in my heart than my recent six-way bypass surgery was able to address.  So, what does all that mean?  Simply this.  I'm getting older, now approaching seventy years of age.  Seems surreal even to hear myself saying such a thing.  Seems only a short time ago I was out on the schoolyard at DuVal Elementary, trying my best to make the swing stand straight out while pretending to be soaring through the sky as an Air Force Pilot. 
  
Point is, I've lived long enough to have witnessed a significant amount of history now, and having done so, to realize the evolution of my culture in ways that I cannot say I'm proud of.  In fact, being raised as I was to revere America as the model of everything good and noble that a nation can be, the very highest example of greatness and achievement any people could aspire to, I cannot avoid the feeling of shame and disappointment I am feeling.  "America the Beautiful", personification of virtue and honor, of whom I once proudly sang patriotic songs of praise and adulation: "My Country Tis of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty", "Oh Beautiful, For Spacious Skies, For Amber Waves of Grain"; that 'Great Lady' whose flag I once saluted with great pride, and believed to be the product of God's special blessing because of the very honor given him by the Founding Fathers;  I regret having to say, I have seen her grow old with me, and very sick.
 
 Idealism is a beautiful thing, but is also fraught with the potential for great emotional distress.  Why?  Because the harsh and bitter truth of stark reality is cruel in its determination to crush and destroy the hope and joy that idealism generated in the heart to begin with.  I was taught that patriotism meant that you regarded your country right next to God, in terms of your loyalty and devotion.  That her citizens, your fellow citizens, were to be cherished and protected by the institutions of Government and those elected to serve.  I was raised to believe that people in public office were the guardians of the public trust, who always had the best interest of their constituents foremost in thier minds.  I looked upon Governors and Congressmen and Senators as the most noble among men, honorable, patriotic, servants of the people who were worthy of my highest respect and esteem.  The President of the United States was right next to God, in terms of a person I should revere and be proud to serve.  Need I say more?
  
I don't think a long explanation or description of the status quo in America is even necessary at this point, because when the the sewer is backed up and overflowing into your bathroom floor and running down the hallway, you don't need anyone to point out the mess, or call your attention to the pungent odors wafting from the corruption that has obliterated the once pristine environment.  Yes, I have a heart problem.  A really painful one, that even six by-passes can't help.  It's the excruciating pain of seeing what fifty years of Godless digression has done to my country.  My Beautiful America.  The Great Lady I once revered so much.  I look at her now, and I weep.
1deciple


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Sensible Stimulus Plan Congress Doesn't Want

Over a month ago, I put together a 'stimulus plan' (since that's all the politicos were talking about) that seemed to make good sense.  It involved both tax cuts and spending, designed to create an immediate, positive effect on our sick economy.  Actually, I had put quite a bit of thought into my plan, because I really wanted to make a contribution to the process...you know..to help my country and all.  Well, when I finished it, I emailed it to my Congressmen and Senators, and even to the White House.  Can you imagine?  I actually got a response, (emphasis on "A", meaning one, singular), and it was a form letter from my Congressman which I had received on three other occasions when I had written to him on other issues, not related to the economy.  I'm sure the others, including Obama were much too busy passing their superior 'spendulus' bill to bother ackwnowledging my humble suggestions. 

As it turns out, a couple of my suggestions wound up in their bill, and they are still considering a couple of others, perhaps to add later.
I'm sharing my Stimulus Plan with you below:

Two Part Plan for Economic Recovery in America
The common sense ideas of one devoted U.S. Citizen/Taxpayer

A.    Part One-Adjustments to the Tax Code

   Rationale:  Oppressive taxation and the complexity of our present tax code have
                    virtually strangled productivity, and penalized hard work and ingenuity.
                    Therefore, the first step in stimulating our Nation’s economy is significant
                    tax relief, to put their own money back into the hands of taxpayers.

1.    Immediately abolish the Capital Gains tax.  
This hateful, confiscatory tax has long been the most counterproductive and repressive disincentive to the creation of new jobs in America.  If business owners and investors were not penalized for their sound business practices, hard work and sacrifice by this governmental extortion of their success, they would be much more incentafied to grow their businesses, hire more people and increase bottom lines, part of which would go into higher earnings and more benefits for their employees.

2.    Abolish the Death Tax, Once and for all.  It has always been an unfair form or double taxation, and hated by everyone except the politicians who instituted it. The very idea of forcing heirs to pay, again, ‘income taxes’ on the wealth and   property upon which taxes has already been paid by their benefactor is simply unjust, and seen as another form of legalized governmental extortion.  Were this   tax not a factor, much of the wealth inherited by heirs would be invested into new businesses that would create new jobs.

3.    Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.  This would almost immediately create additional investment activity, causing increased confidence in the economy.

4.    Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to be competitive with foreign countries, to which  many U.S. Companies have fled with their workforces.  This would bring many of those companies back to American cities along with their work force, and prevent others from leaving to escape the high taxes imposed by the U.S. Tax Code.  I suggest an immediate 15% reduction, as a good starting point.
     
5.    Cut Personal Income Tax Rates, effective January 1, 2009, by 25%, across the board, and suspend the payroll deduction for the first quarter of 2009 starting immediately (March 1).  Getting rid of payroll deduction for income tax for a period of time would be the equivalent of raising wages at a time when workers   need it most.  Wage earners would have more to spend, invest, save and give to charity, stimulating the economy immediately.

6.    Repeal all sections of the tax code that create the “Marriage Penalty”, so called.
      Like any other reduction of taxes, this would increase buying power and thus,  stimulate the economy.

7.    Allow all Companies that employ two or more employees an immediate credit of $10,000 for each new hire or re-hire they maintain on their payroll for at least  three years. (Credit to be taken at $3333 each calendar year for three years.  Employees would have to be paid at least at Federal Minimum Wage level to qualify employer for this credit.) This would encourage/incentify massive and  immediate job creation


8.    Allow additional $1200 annual tax credit to employers who provide at least 50%  of employee’s healthcare. 
Proof would have to be provided that the entire credit was spent on the employee’s healthcare premiums.  Again, this would be another
incentive for creation/restoration of jobs.

9.    Allow 100% tax credit for all sales taxes and first time licensing costs of any new car or truck purchase, and extend this benefit to all sectors, private, company, and even to Corporate Fleets.  This would be an immediate boost to the ailing auto industry, and would put thousands of people back to work immediately!

10.    Initiate a six month moratorium on the Federal Gasoline/Highway tax now being collected at the gas pump!  This reduction would translate to relief for all those businesses, both large and small, who depend on gasoline for transportation of  goods and services, lowering their cost of doing business, and enable rehiring of many laid off employees.  Benefit to individuals and families would encourage a return to normal driving habits.


B.  Part Two-Targeted Spending Directed at Job Creation
as well as reducing foreclosure rates and encouraging home-buying.
 

1.    Provide $7500 Coupons to qualified buyers for purchase of hybrid automobiles (Up to two per family) This would stimulate development/production of more fuel efficient vehicles while creating/securing jobs in alternative energy and auto industries.

2.    Provide $15,000 voucher from FHA toward purchase of a new (different) home for qualified buyers. (Qulified according to long established and accepted standards of sound banking/lending policies) Immediate stimulus effect resulting from more people buying homes.  Will put Thousands back to work almost immediately.

3.    Provide Government Backing for 25 year fixed-rate loans at 4% to qualified Buyers, and require only 5% out of pocket down from buyer, with other 5% of 10% down payment requirement coming from Federal Grant, to be added to end of mortgage.

4.    Provide Government Guaranteed construction loans to Builders for new or re-hab construction with rates of 1% above prime.  Loans could not exceed appraised value of property as improved.  This would create a new wave of home building and remodeling that would create/restore many construction jobs.
        
5.    Provide housing assistance up to $200 monthly for up to three years for families with recently lost incomes, who are in danger of foreclosure.  This would Allow endangered families to remain in their homes and forestall foreclosure until jobs/incomes could become stabilized/refinancing could reduce the financial stress of burdensome payments.  

6.    Provide refinance loans @ 4% for those struggling with ARM mortgages that have placed them in jeopardy of foreclosure but who could make their payments when the interest rate is adjusted to the lower rate.

7.    Provide 70/30 matching Federal construction funds for the several States to construct/rehab public roadways/bridges/schools and other publicly owned/maintained infrastructure.  Condition for qualifying projects: must be shovel-ready within six months, creating jobs almost immediately.  This piece of the stimulus package should be no more than 25% of the total.


8.    Provide Federal funding to States to add $100 monthly to Unemployment checks.  The additional money is badly needed by families and individuals who’ve lost their jobs and now depend on Unemployment benefits to feed their families and pay their bills, while they seek new employment.  This would increase spending for goods and services, providing immediate stimulus for the economy.

I really think these are sound and practical ideas that would work, but for the most part, Congress doesn't seem to be thinking along these lines.  Let me know what you think.

1deciple


                     

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barach's Boondoggle

The Economic Recovery Act passed by the Congress today is going to become known as Obama’s Boondoggle!  It almost robs me of the pride of being an American when I see so many of our elected representatives in Washington cave to special interests, "big money" lobbyists and other political pressure to pass a bill none of them had read, thoroughly. They listened to all the ‘pie in the sky’ promises of an almost Utopian future that could be expected to result from passage, and turned a deaf ear to wiser heads, thirteen of whom were courageous and more principled Democrats who warned of the dangers of this bill, and tried valiantly to get the ‘majority’ to consider a better alternative. I commend those sensible members of Congress who opposed this bill, for their courage and patriotism. They acted responsibly and, hopefully, will be rewarded with reelection when their terms are up.

I am grateful to ESPN for their live coverage, and am deeply regretful that all Americans didn’t have the opportunity to hear all the   debate this bill received. It is a sad day for America and will prove to be an even sadder day at reelection time for those       Congressional representatives and Senators who share responsibility for passage of this ‘monstrosity’ ‘Spendulous’ package.   It will serve them right when they are voted out of office. They had a chance to perform a wonderful service for their constituencies and for all America, and they blew it. Before this year is over, my Countrymen and women are going to be asking themselves, “What have they done to us?! Change? What change?"   This was politics as usual and at its shameful worst.

1deciple

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »