It seems whenever there is a high-profile legal case, the verdict that comes back is never the one that most people would have reached. One has to wonder, then, what kinds of people we have serving on jury duty in this country. To correct this problem, I would like to suggest the following:
Since a trial by jury is guaranteed to all Americans it seems that as nearly all Americans as possible should be allowed the opportunity to serve on a jury. What holds many people back is the fact that they can't afford to take the time off from work. To alleviate this, we need legislation that states that every employer must pay their employees for jury duty. The employee would receive the same salary as if they were at work. The employer would get this money back in a refund on their income taxes. For employers with less than 100 employees, the jury duty would be capped at two weeks. For employers with employees from 100 to 499 would be capped at three weeks and employers with 500 or more employees would be unlimited.
Courts today pay jurors a very small sum of money. This would be stopped for all jurors who are employed, as they would continue to be paid by their employers. Only the unemployed would receive payment from the courts for their jury service.
Next comes jury selection. The courts should broaden their pool by using not only voter registration as a means of identifying jurors but also drivers licenses, cell phone contracts, cable television contracts, medical insurance, vehicle insurance, etc. All of these companies would be required to submit to the local courts a listing of names, addresses and social security numbers. The courts would then cross-reference the information and use this as their pool for summoning jurors. By increasing the pool, it would be easy to then limit service to no more than once in a three year period.
Finally, we need to expedite the trial system. The current practice of attempting to stack a jury in one's favor must be eliminated. When a case is going to trial, 35 names should be pulled and those people should appear in the courtroom. The judge will explain the trial and the length of time it will be scheduled to take. If the case goes longer than two weeks, only those jurors who are paid beyond two weeks will be required to stay. All others will be excused. From the remaining jurors, the plaintiff, defendent, attorneys and witnesses will be named. If anyone in the prospective juror pool knows any of these people, they will be excused.
From the remaining jurors, 12 names will be pulled, along with two alternates. This will be the jury and the trial will begin. The attorneys will not be allowed to question any jurors ahead of time. This would eliminate much of the backlog at courthouses throughout this country.
We need this kind of common sense jury reform to ensure that all Americans are entitled to a trial by jury with a competent group of men and women sitting in judgment.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Gay Marriage - Where We Go From Here
In November 2008, the voters of California passed legislation that outlawed same-sex marriage in this state. That law was immediately fought and today, June 26, 2013, four years and eight months later, it has been put to rest, being found unconstitutional. Gay marriage is once again legal in California.
One of the reasons for the passage of the original proposition was the influx of money into this state in support of the measure. One of the largest donors to this movement was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), more commonly known as "the Mormons." The Mormons were in favor of this legislation and worked hard to pass it. While the church officially recognizes donations of less than $200,000, many news sources place LDS money at closer to $20 million. Added to this was the enormous number of volunteer hours the Mormons put in going door-to-door in favor of this initiative (and who knows better about going door-to-door than the Mormons?).
Putting this in perspective, it must be remembered that in 2008 our state was still being governed by Arnold Schwrzenegger. "Mismanaged" would probably be a better term. We were hurting financially and a sudden jolt of cash was just what our state needed. Along came the Mormons to help out. We should really be thanking them for their assistance in our time of need.
In fact, we should go even farther to show our appreciation. Once gay marriages are again being performed in the Golden State, we should make Salt Lake City the gay honeymoon capital of America! Happily wed gay and lesbian couples should flock to the Beehive State to spread around our money and our unique style of mirth. After all, fair is fair.
Some newly wed gay couples may have their sites on a less domestic honeymoon site. There is a solution for those couples as well. While not as financially affluent as their Mormon counterparts, the Roman Catholics did their part to help pass the proposition. The Knights of Columbus financially backed the measure and the California Catholic Conference was very vocal in their support. As a way of saying, "thank you" to those hard-working Catholic men and women who also helped our state, we should make The Vatican our international honeymoon capital of choice. Just picture all of those angelic gay faces, hand-in-hand strolling through the Vatican Museum, looking at the gorgeous gowns and red Prada shoes worn by Popes of the Past. The scent of dust mingles with the odor of Axe as one astute young man points to his husband and whispers, "Can you believe she wore that?"
Yes, I believe it is time the gay community give back to those who helped our state in our time of need. We need to stand proudly and say, "thank you" to the Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church in a way that they will truly understand our meaning.
One of the reasons for the passage of the original proposition was the influx of money into this state in support of the measure. One of the largest donors to this movement was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), more commonly known as "the Mormons." The Mormons were in favor of this legislation and worked hard to pass it. While the church officially recognizes donations of less than $200,000, many news sources place LDS money at closer to $20 million. Added to this was the enormous number of volunteer hours the Mormons put in going door-to-door in favor of this initiative (and who knows better about going door-to-door than the Mormons?).
Putting this in perspective, it must be remembered that in 2008 our state was still being governed by Arnold Schwrzenegger. "Mismanaged" would probably be a better term. We were hurting financially and a sudden jolt of cash was just what our state needed. Along came the Mormons to help out. We should really be thanking them for their assistance in our time of need.
In fact, we should go even farther to show our appreciation. Once gay marriages are again being performed in the Golden State, we should make Salt Lake City the gay honeymoon capital of America! Happily wed gay and lesbian couples should flock to the Beehive State to spread around our money and our unique style of mirth. After all, fair is fair.
Some newly wed gay couples may have their sites on a less domestic honeymoon site. There is a solution for those couples as well. While not as financially affluent as their Mormon counterparts, the Roman Catholics did their part to help pass the proposition. The Knights of Columbus financially backed the measure and the California Catholic Conference was very vocal in their support. As a way of saying, "thank you" to those hard-working Catholic men and women who also helped our state, we should make The Vatican our international honeymoon capital of choice. Just picture all of those angelic gay faces, hand-in-hand strolling through the Vatican Museum, looking at the gorgeous gowns and red Prada shoes worn by Popes of the Past. The scent of dust mingles with the odor of Axe as one astute young man points to his husband and whispers, "Can you believe she wore that?"
Yes, I believe it is time the gay community give back to those who helped our state in our time of need. We need to stand proudly and say, "thank you" to the Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church in a way that they will truly understand our meaning.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Once Again, Abortion Is In The News
Okay, today the House of Representatives, in an incredible show of solidarity among the Republican party, voted to outlaw abortions performed after the fifth month. Now, on the surface, many people might think that this is a good idea. After all, at five months a fetus can allegedly feel pain and should therefore be considered a human being and worthy of all rights and privileges thereof.
All well and good. Although, this does bring up the question of cruelty to animals, since they too can feel pain and yet we kill them with wanton abandon. Apparently, feeling pain is only a bad thing if it's a human who is doing the feeling.
But I digress. Back to the abortions. In our country, abortion statistics have been tracked by the Centers for Disease Control since 1969. Those statistics are available on the CDC site for anyone who wants to take the time to look them up. Since they're dealing with numbers coming in from various sources, the final numbers are several years behind. The most complete year is 2009, so those are the numbers I will use in this example.
The total number of abortions performed after 16 weeks (which is the fourth month, not the fifth) were 27,573. That might sound like a lot of abortions but consider that this is 4.9% of the total of abortions performed in this country in that year.
Let's put this in perspective. All states in this country have representation from the people. They have a governor, two senators, a number of congressmen, an upper state house and a lower state house. In 2009, the majority of elected officials in each of the following states were Republicans; Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.
So what? Well, in each of these states more abortions were performed than the 4.9% of those performed after 16 weeks. The numbers are:
Florida - 81,918
Georgia - 32,925
North Carolina - 30,596
Ohio - 28,721
Pennsylvania - 37,284
Texas - 77,630
The Republicans in the House of Representatives thought it was so important to lessen the number of abortions in this country that they spent tax payer dollars on a bill that would reduce the total number of abortions by less than 30,000. If they had merely outlawed abortions in Texas they would have had more than twice that number. If they outlawed abortions in Florida, it would be nearly three times that number. If they outlawed abortions in the six states listed above, over half of the abortions in this country would be eliminated!
Republicans - it seems to me if you want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, stop having so many.
All well and good. Although, this does bring up the question of cruelty to animals, since they too can feel pain and yet we kill them with wanton abandon. Apparently, feeling pain is only a bad thing if it's a human who is doing the feeling.
But I digress. Back to the abortions. In our country, abortion statistics have been tracked by the Centers for Disease Control since 1969. Those statistics are available on the CDC site for anyone who wants to take the time to look them up. Since they're dealing with numbers coming in from various sources, the final numbers are several years behind. The most complete year is 2009, so those are the numbers I will use in this example.
The total number of abortions performed after 16 weeks (which is the fourth month, not the fifth) were 27,573. That might sound like a lot of abortions but consider that this is 4.9% of the total of abortions performed in this country in that year.
Let's put this in perspective. All states in this country have representation from the people. They have a governor, two senators, a number of congressmen, an upper state house and a lower state house. In 2009, the majority of elected officials in each of the following states were Republicans; Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.
So what? Well, in each of these states more abortions were performed than the 4.9% of those performed after 16 weeks. The numbers are:
Florida - 81,918
Georgia - 32,925
North Carolina - 30,596
Ohio - 28,721
Pennsylvania - 37,284
Texas - 77,630
The Republicans in the House of Representatives thought it was so important to lessen the number of abortions in this country that they spent tax payer dollars on a bill that would reduce the total number of abortions by less than 30,000. If they had merely outlawed abortions in Texas they would have had more than twice that number. If they outlawed abortions in Florida, it would be nearly three times that number. If they outlawed abortions in the six states listed above, over half of the abortions in this country would be eliminated!
Republicans - it seems to me if you want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, stop having so many.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
The Word of God
This may seem like an out of place post, given that this is a political blog but since many people blur the lines between religion and politics, I think this is a necessary article to write. I'm looking at the idea of the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible is often used in politics to explain why something should or should not be. For example, in the fight for gay marriage, those opposed to the idea will say, "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." While it is true that the book of Genesis uses the characters of Adam and Eve, the question is, are these just characters or were they actual people? Those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God will see them as true people who actually lived several thousand years ago.
The story of Adam and Eve is an excellent starting point for this discussion. The story is in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Tanakh or what the Christians call the Old Testament. This is the story of creation and explains the beginning of our planet and the life on it. In fact, the word "genesis" means beginning. It is the origin of something, which makes the book aptly named.
Most people in America know the basic story of Adam and Eve. It goes something like this: Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. God told them not to eat the apple but the devil came disguised as a snake and tempted Eve. She ate the apple and gave it to Adam. He also ate it. When God found out they ate the apple, He threw them out of the Garden and they had to raise their own food from then on.
This is the story that most people repeat in one form or another. The problem with this story is that it is wrong. The following is the actual story. I'm not going to copy it from the Bible and paste it here since there are many different versions of the Bible. I will, however, include the chapter and verse numbers so anyone who doesn't believe me can look it up for themselves.
The story of Adam and Eve begins in Chapter 1 verse 26 (1:26) of the book of Genesis. The people aren't named but this is when God creates humankind. In 1:29 He states that every plant is theirs to eat.
In 2:3 He creates man. The story is basically repeated because the Israelites had split into separate kingdoms and each had their own story. When they came back together again, the stories were merged together. Musch of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) is repeated this way.
In 2:7 He makes man from the earth. In 2:9 He puts the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the center of the Garden of Eden.
In 2:17 He tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or else he will die. In 2:19 he makes Eve out of Adam's rib.
In 3:1 the serpent comes and asks Eve what God said about eating the fruit. She says they'll die if they eat it. The serpent tells her that she won't die, she'll simply become more like God having the knowledge of good and evil. In 3:6 she eats the fruit and gives it to Adam. In 3:7 they realize they are naked (nakedness was seen as evil, showing that they now know the difference between good and evil).
In 3:10-11 God asks why they are hiding and Adam replies that they were ashamed of their nakedness. God asks who told them that they were naked and asks if they ate the fruit. In 3:12 Adam blames Eve. In 3:13 she tells God that the serpent tricked her.
In 3:14 God curses the serpents. In 3:16 He curses the woman. In 3:17 he tells man that going forward he must toil to produce his own crops.
In 3:22 (from the New English Translation) "And the Lord God said, 'Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'"
So, what does all of this have to do with the Bible being the Word of God? According to this story, which is in the beginning of the Bible, God is a liar. God told Adam that if he ate the fruit he would die. Adam ate the fruit and did NOT die. God lied. Now, many Christians will say that man was immortal until then and that since he eventually died, God did not lie but this argument does not work because of 3:22. God never told them not to eat of the tree of life but they never had. They were always mortal. Since they did not eat of it, they were still mortal and He was preventing them ever becoming immortal by banishing them from the garden.
If God is a liar and the Bible is the Word of God, you cannot trust the Bible. If, however, God is not a liar, then the Bible cannot be the Word of God. This makes more sense. The Bible is the work of man and as such, it is a wonderful book of stories but it is not the final word from the Creator.
A few other points to make in this story; the story does not have a devil. Satan was unknown when this story was written. In fact, the concept of a devil did not yet exist in Judaism. That idea was borrowed from the Babylonians many centuries later. God cursed serpents for this action. If the devil was disguised as a serpent, He would not have cursed serpents for the action of the devil.
There is not an apple in the story. The fruit is never named. It is only referred to as "the fruit."
God had to ask why Adam and Eve were hiding. He is not omniscient. That idea came along later as well.
The story is wonderful and it's perfect that it is placed at the very beginning of the Bible because it sets the tone for how to read the book. Enjoy the stories but remember, they are only stories. Not God's laws.
The story of Adam and Eve is an excellent starting point for this discussion. The story is in the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Tanakh or what the Christians call the Old Testament. This is the story of creation and explains the beginning of our planet and the life on it. In fact, the word "genesis" means beginning. It is the origin of something, which makes the book aptly named.
Most people in America know the basic story of Adam and Eve. It goes something like this: Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. God told them not to eat the apple but the devil came disguised as a snake and tempted Eve. She ate the apple and gave it to Adam. He also ate it. When God found out they ate the apple, He threw them out of the Garden and they had to raise their own food from then on.
This is the story that most people repeat in one form or another. The problem with this story is that it is wrong. The following is the actual story. I'm not going to copy it from the Bible and paste it here since there are many different versions of the Bible. I will, however, include the chapter and verse numbers so anyone who doesn't believe me can look it up for themselves.
The story of Adam and Eve begins in Chapter 1 verse 26 (1:26) of the book of Genesis. The people aren't named but this is when God creates humankind. In 1:29 He states that every plant is theirs to eat.
In 2:3 He creates man. The story is basically repeated because the Israelites had split into separate kingdoms and each had their own story. When they came back together again, the stories were merged together. Musch of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) is repeated this way.
In 2:7 He makes man from the earth. In 2:9 He puts the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the center of the Garden of Eden.
In 2:17 He tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or else he will die. In 2:19 he makes Eve out of Adam's rib.
In 3:1 the serpent comes and asks Eve what God said about eating the fruit. She says they'll die if they eat it. The serpent tells her that she won't die, she'll simply become more like God having the knowledge of good and evil. In 3:6 she eats the fruit and gives it to Adam. In 3:7 they realize they are naked (nakedness was seen as evil, showing that they now know the difference between good and evil).
In 3:10-11 God asks why they are hiding and Adam replies that they were ashamed of their nakedness. God asks who told them that they were naked and asks if they ate the fruit. In 3:12 Adam blames Eve. In 3:13 she tells God that the serpent tricked her.
In 3:14 God curses the serpents. In 3:16 He curses the woman. In 3:17 he tells man that going forward he must toil to produce his own crops.
In 3:22 (from the New English Translation) "And the Lord God said, 'Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'"
So, what does all of this have to do with the Bible being the Word of God? According to this story, which is in the beginning of the Bible, God is a liar. God told Adam that if he ate the fruit he would die. Adam ate the fruit and did NOT die. God lied. Now, many Christians will say that man was immortal until then and that since he eventually died, God did not lie but this argument does not work because of 3:22. God never told them not to eat of the tree of life but they never had. They were always mortal. Since they did not eat of it, they were still mortal and He was preventing them ever becoming immortal by banishing them from the garden.
If God is a liar and the Bible is the Word of God, you cannot trust the Bible. If, however, God is not a liar, then the Bible cannot be the Word of God. This makes more sense. The Bible is the work of man and as such, it is a wonderful book of stories but it is not the final word from the Creator.
A few other points to make in this story; the story does not have a devil. Satan was unknown when this story was written. In fact, the concept of a devil did not yet exist in Judaism. That idea was borrowed from the Babylonians many centuries later. God cursed serpents for this action. If the devil was disguised as a serpent, He would not have cursed serpents for the action of the devil.
There is not an apple in the story. The fruit is never named. It is only referred to as "the fruit."
God had to ask why Adam and Eve were hiding. He is not omniscient. That idea came along later as well.
The story is wonderful and it's perfect that it is placed at the very beginning of the Bible because it sets the tone for how to read the book. Enjoy the stories but remember, they are only stories. Not God's laws.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Election Day 2013
Today is Election Day 2013 for the city of Los Angeles. At least for me it is because I use the mail option of voting. So, in case anyone is interested, here's how I voted:
For Mayor - Jan Perry. This year is a typical, not voting for someone so much as voting against someone, kind of year. The main contenders seem to be Jan Perry, Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel (rhymes with "cruel"). Garcetti is a lifelong politician who jumps from one office to another because of term limits. Everyone in this city knows his name yet no one can name one thing he has done to make this a better place to live.
Wendy Greuel is about as useful as tits on a bull (as my father would say). I lived in her district when she was on the city council and she did nothing to help that area. Developers tore down houses by the score and put up apartment buildings, increasing traffic and sending single family house values down. She never did anything to stop this. Traffic got so bad that the area residents were terrified of their kids being hit by cars and her office wouldn't even help to put in speed bumps.
That leaves Jan Perry. She has both a bachelor's and master's degree, so she's well-educated. She believes in reigning in the DWP (Greuel is okay with our water and power rates being increased on a regular basis and over-paying the employees of the DWP). She seems like she'd be a good choice for mayor, so I'm giving her a shot.
For Controller - same thing. Dennis Zine is running but I used to live in his district as well. When I go back there and look at the street where I lived, which is two blocks from his district office, I am appalled. The street is so torn up it looks like a war zone. It has looked that way for more than five years now and Zine has not done anything to change it. We contacted his office repeatedly and his mantra was always "there's no money in the budget." This, in spite of the fact that a few blocks away, he replaced a neighborhood's street from sidewalk to sidewalk. New sidewalks, curbs, driveway openings and street. It seems to me had he simply refinished the street (which was all that was really necessary) he would have had the money to refinish other streets. He mismanaged the money, for reasons I can only guess at. If he can't manage a simple budget, why would we want him as Controller?
I voted for Jeff Bornstein. He's a business owner, so hopefully he understand how to handle money. Really, I was not impressed with anyone who is running for this office.
For City Attorney I voted for Carmen Trutanich. He is already a city attorney so he understands the work involved.
For the Unified School District I voted for Monica Ratliff. She's a fifth grade teacher. I think we need more teachers on the School Board because they know what our schools need. Perhaps if we put more teachers on and removed the businessmen, lawyers and "advocates" our board could get something done.
For the board of trustees I voted for John Burke (Accounting Professor) because he teaches accounting so should know something about finance (I wish he was running for Controller); Ernest Morena (retired College President) because he has experience in running a college; and Tom Oliver (retired College President) for the same reason.
For Proposition A (raising our sales tax) I voted no because our sales tax is already the highest in the state. I don't care what the city wants to use the money for, find other ways of raising money rather than increasing sales tax yet again. By the way, Jan Perry is also against this.
For Proposition B (allowing Department of General Services police to buy into retirement credit when they become members of the police department) I voted no. If I go to work for another company, I don't get to bring my retirement credits from previous employers with me. That's part of going to work for another company. If your retirement benefits are so great with the DGS, stay there. If you now want to work for the LAPD, you can start over just like the rest of us. Dennis Zine and Wendy Greuel both support this proposition. Another reason not to vote for either of them.
Election Day is actually March 5, 2013.
For Mayor - Jan Perry. This year is a typical, not voting for someone so much as voting against someone, kind of year. The main contenders seem to be Jan Perry, Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel (rhymes with "cruel"). Garcetti is a lifelong politician who jumps from one office to another because of term limits. Everyone in this city knows his name yet no one can name one thing he has done to make this a better place to live.
Wendy Greuel is about as useful as tits on a bull (as my father would say). I lived in her district when she was on the city council and she did nothing to help that area. Developers tore down houses by the score and put up apartment buildings, increasing traffic and sending single family house values down. She never did anything to stop this. Traffic got so bad that the area residents were terrified of their kids being hit by cars and her office wouldn't even help to put in speed bumps.
That leaves Jan Perry. She has both a bachelor's and master's degree, so she's well-educated. She believes in reigning in the DWP (Greuel is okay with our water and power rates being increased on a regular basis and over-paying the employees of the DWP). She seems like she'd be a good choice for mayor, so I'm giving her a shot.
For Controller - same thing. Dennis Zine is running but I used to live in his district as well. When I go back there and look at the street where I lived, which is two blocks from his district office, I am appalled. The street is so torn up it looks like a war zone. It has looked that way for more than five years now and Zine has not done anything to change it. We contacted his office repeatedly and his mantra was always "there's no money in the budget." This, in spite of the fact that a few blocks away, he replaced a neighborhood's street from sidewalk to sidewalk. New sidewalks, curbs, driveway openings and street. It seems to me had he simply refinished the street (which was all that was really necessary) he would have had the money to refinish other streets. He mismanaged the money, for reasons I can only guess at. If he can't manage a simple budget, why would we want him as Controller?
I voted for Jeff Bornstein. He's a business owner, so hopefully he understand how to handle money. Really, I was not impressed with anyone who is running for this office.
For City Attorney I voted for Carmen Trutanich. He is already a city attorney so he understands the work involved.
For the Unified School District I voted for Monica Ratliff. She's a fifth grade teacher. I think we need more teachers on the School Board because they know what our schools need. Perhaps if we put more teachers on and removed the businessmen, lawyers and "advocates" our board could get something done.
For the board of trustees I voted for John Burke (Accounting Professor) because he teaches accounting so should know something about finance (I wish he was running for Controller); Ernest Morena (retired College President) because he has experience in running a college; and Tom Oliver (retired College President) for the same reason.
For Proposition A (raising our sales tax) I voted no because our sales tax is already the highest in the state. I don't care what the city wants to use the money for, find other ways of raising money rather than increasing sales tax yet again. By the way, Jan Perry is also against this.
For Proposition B (allowing Department of General Services police to buy into retirement credit when they become members of the police department) I voted no. If I go to work for another company, I don't get to bring my retirement credits from previous employers with me. That's part of going to work for another company. If your retirement benefits are so great with the DGS, stay there. If you now want to work for the LAPD, you can start over just like the rest of us. Dennis Zine and Wendy Greuel both support this proposition. Another reason not to vote for either of them.
Election Day is actually March 5, 2013.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Romney and Bain Capital
It seems that Mitt Romney is at odds with President Obama on Mitt's record at Bain Capital. A very brief background on this situation goes something like this; Mitt Romney was a founding member of Bain Capital, an equity investment firm. During his time at Bain the company took over other companies, often selling them off in pieces or apparently outsourcing their workers to other countries. Romney left Bain in 1999 to run the Winter Olympics.
Unfortunately for Mr. Romney, Bain itself doesn't entirely agree with his story. According to filings with the SEC, Mr. Romney continued to be the sole share holder and Corporate Manager of Bain as late as 2001. Mr. Romney claims that Bain's outsourcing of jobs outside the United States happened in 2000, when he was no longer with the company, but the SEC filings show that he was still with the company.
Mr. Romney also claims that he has created 100,000 jobs in the United States. He does not say where these jobs are and, like his claim the he pays 13% annually in income tax but he won't release his tax returns to substantiate this claim, we are simply supposed to take him at his word. Bain Capital employees roughly 400 employees, which leaves 99,600 jobs to account for. Mr. Romney has a long way to go.
The GOP has been stating for years that raising taxes on the wealthy is a bad idea because the wealthy are the job creators. Mr. Romney is extremely wealthy. So, where are the jobs he is supposed to have created? So far, his verifiable tally is 400. Does that many jobs warrant a 13% tax base when the majority of us are paying closer to 30%?
Had Mr. Romney started a company that manufactured widgets, built a plant in the United States, hired American workers and built up that company to be successful, then he could run on the platform of being a job creator. Since he built a company that destroys other companies and outsources jobs to other countries, Mr. Romney's platform should be as a job destroyer. Unless he's running for office in either China or India because he has apparently done a fairly good job of keeping their citizens employed.
Electing Mr. Romney to the highest office in the land based on his business record is a huge mistake. Mr. Romney has clearly demonstrated that his first priority is his own wallet and not the welfare of this country or its citizens.
Unfortunately for Mr. Romney, Bain itself doesn't entirely agree with his story. According to filings with the SEC, Mr. Romney continued to be the sole share holder and Corporate Manager of Bain as late as 2001. Mr. Romney claims that Bain's outsourcing of jobs outside the United States happened in 2000, when he was no longer with the company, but the SEC filings show that he was still with the company.
Mr. Romney also claims that he has created 100,000 jobs in the United States. He does not say where these jobs are and, like his claim the he pays 13% annually in income tax but he won't release his tax returns to substantiate this claim, we are simply supposed to take him at his word. Bain Capital employees roughly 400 employees, which leaves 99,600 jobs to account for. Mr. Romney has a long way to go.
The GOP has been stating for years that raising taxes on the wealthy is a bad idea because the wealthy are the job creators. Mr. Romney is extremely wealthy. So, where are the jobs he is supposed to have created? So far, his verifiable tally is 400. Does that many jobs warrant a 13% tax base when the majority of us are paying closer to 30%?
Had Mr. Romney started a company that manufactured widgets, built a plant in the United States, hired American workers and built up that company to be successful, then he could run on the platform of being a job creator. Since he built a company that destroys other companies and outsources jobs to other countries, Mr. Romney's platform should be as a job destroyer. Unless he's running for office in either China or India because he has apparently done a fairly good job of keeping their citizens employed.
Electing Mr. Romney to the highest office in the land based on his business record is a huge mistake. Mr. Romney has clearly demonstrated that his first priority is his own wallet and not the welfare of this country or its citizens.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Stick With the Issues
Mitt Romney is unhappy with President Obama due to the latter's campaign making an issue of the filings with the SEC by Bain Capital. It seems that Mr. Romney claimed to have left Bain in 1999. From 2000 until 2002, Bain sent thousand of American jobs overseas but Mr. Romney said those job losses are not his doing because he had already left Bain. Unfortunately for Mr. Romney, Bain's financial statements filed with the SEC list Mr. Romney as their president, CEO and chief stock holder.
Apparently Mr. Romney is a liar.
Mr. Romney is now upset with the President and says that the economy is the real issue and that's what this campaign should focus on. He also claims that President Obama has not done a good job of improving our economy.
It appears Mr. Romney is lying again.
When Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was $8,599.18. On July 20, 2012 the Dow was at $12,822.57. That's a 49.11% increase over where it was on his inauguration day. That, Mr. Romney, shows an improvement in our economy.
Further, in October 2009 the unemployment rate in this country was at its highest at 10%. In June 2012 that number was down 18% to 8.2%. That, Mr. Romney, also shows an improvement in our economy.
Mr. Romney, it seems that President Obama does, in fact, understand the economy and unlike you, he has been focusing on creating jobs here in America, not shipping them overseas.
Apparently Mr. Romney is a liar.
Mr. Romney is now upset with the President and says that the economy is the real issue and that's what this campaign should focus on. He also claims that President Obama has not done a good job of improving our economy.
It appears Mr. Romney is lying again.
When Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was $8,599.18. On July 20, 2012 the Dow was at $12,822.57. That's a 49.11% increase over where it was on his inauguration day. That, Mr. Romney, shows an improvement in our economy.
Further, in October 2009 the unemployment rate in this country was at its highest at 10%. In June 2012 that number was down 18% to 8.2%. That, Mr. Romney, also shows an improvement in our economy.
Mr. Romney, it seems that President Obama does, in fact, understand the economy and unlike you, he has been focusing on creating jobs here in America, not shipping them overseas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
