Disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards reportedly beat his cancer-stricken wife during a horrific marriage-ending fight. "John lost his temper big time," a close friend of Elizabeth's revealed to the National Enquirer. Who ever thought we'd turn to the National Enquirer as the paper of record ...
"She has the divorce papers drawn up, but she can amend them to charge John with domestic violence." Go ahead. Toss his ass in jug. The Breck Girl in prison. I'd buy Pay Per View to watch that reality show.
"New boy, y'all got purty hair. And a real purty mouth..."
The couple's furious confrontation was the "final straw" in Elizabeth's decision to end their 32-year marriage after it was revealed that he had fathered a child out of wedlock with his ex-mistress Rielle Hunter, the newspaper revealed today in a bombshell report on its Web site. "When [John] made the decision to hit me, it was over," a friend said Elizabeth told her. "Da bish wuz messin' wid me! Whut else could I do?" Tonight on "Cops"...
"What's going on here, John?"
"Nuthin..."
"Been drinking tonight, John?"
"Little bit..."
"Ya hit her, John?"
"Ah dunno...Ah doan remembah..."
Last month, Edwards finally admitted that he had fathered Hunter's 2-year-old daughter Frances. "I couldn't hide it no more. We got the same hair!"
Another friend revealed that Elizabeth sometimes also phycially attacked her husband when talking about his affair with Hunter. "Not the face, Elizabeth! Not the face!"
"She was so tormented by John's cheating and lies that she lashed out physically at him many times, even slapping him," said a friend. "On a couple of occasions, when the fights became heated, she grabbed him by the shoulders and screamed, 'Why, why, why?!' Lemme see... Depthless pretty boy with a sense of entitlement put in proximity to a New Age slut? "It's mah trailer park...thing, hunny! But y'all knew all about that when ya up 'n married me! Ah jus cain't hep mahself!" "Iah nevah said Iah'd be faithful, Iah jus' said Iah'd be well-groomed!"
"Elizabeth would break down in tears and try to make John explain why he was throwing his family and political life away. During one of the confrontations, Elizabeth grabbed his arms and shook him so hard that John had to restrain her." "Stop it, Elizabeth! Stop it! You're mussing my hair!"
These revelations come as onetime Edwards loyalist Andrew Young released details of the affair in his new book, "The Politician," and the ensuing coverup of the affair with Hunter and their love child. If you thing a woman scorned is a scary thing, consider the revenge of the passively adoring aide who was used and publicly abused. I'm betting Young can drag this out for months, especially if that tape surfaces.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Go ahead. Toss his ass in jug.
Yeah. We dare you. Besides, they'd give him a buzz haircut. And it wouldn't cost $400 to do it, either.
#4
Everyone needs to read the book "Game Change" and it will open your eyes to political marriages. The only two people in that election that had what anyone of us would call a normal marriage would be Sarah Palin and Barak Obama.
Like father like son. Chicago Alderman Isaac "Ike" Carothers has pleaded guilty to corruption and faces 28 months in jail. His father, former Alderman William Carothers, was convicted of attempted extortion in 1983.
Here's how Chicago's WGN TV News announced the 31st Chicago City Council Alderman since 1973 -- but, hey, who's counting -- to be convicted of crimes that include paying a bribe, taking a bribe, extortion, attempted extortion, tax fraud, tax evasion, racketeering, and ghost-payrolling schemes. They have a quorum in the pen ...
Ike was formally charged with fraud and bribery last May by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the legal beagle who has former Governor Rod Blagojevich facing trial this summer. That is, unless Blago does enough talking to turn a plea deal. And that's a potential factor that makes the Carothers' case particularly interesting.
You can catch up on the details of Ike's misdeeds in the Chicago print media here, here and here.
Let's piece together lines from two of those articles. First, the Chicago Sun Times piece:
He [Carothers] wasn't shy during the eight-month period between his indictment and conviction. Carothers continued to show up regularly at City Hall, chairing Police and Fire Committee meetings and rising on the City Council floor to participate in debates.
Okay, so Ike kept involved in Machine business after his indictment. Guess what he was doing during that time? WGN News tells us.
As part of his cooperation with the government, Carothers has secretly worn a wire in corruption investigations. Prosecutors have been mum about what other shady arrangements Carothers has been involved in, but Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Fox told U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. during the plea hearing that the alderman has been helpful in 'at least two matters.'
Oh, oh, Ike wore a wire!
Once upon a time, the Machine relied on a code of silence. If you got caught, you paid your penalty and the Machine cranked on. But Ike wore a wire. This summer, an even bigger fish, Blagojevich, could have many more things to say based on his intimate knowledge of the Machine.
How long do you suppose it'll be before U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald is 'promoted' out of the Northern District of Illinois?
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How is this possible Dr. Steve? Chicago CAN'T actually be cleaning up - must be a case of thieves not paying the required commissions.
The federales jug an alderman every so often to show that they are 'cleaning up' Chicago. Keeps the reporters and the goo-goos happy, and it's nice to have on a resume if you're a federal prosecutor hoping one day to go for elected office.
Daley doesn't mind; he's got 50 alderman after all, and he always has a candidate ready to step up to the big table.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/04/2010 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There is a long history of Chicago
aldermen going to jail (especially the "reformers"). That's nothing new. However, it will be interesting to hear what the recordings reveal. A bigger issue is what Blago the Bizarre will come up with at trial.
#7
Goo-goo: Chicago slang for a 'goodie-goodie', a do-gooder, good government type, usually a lakefront liberal who is clueless as to how things really work.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/04/2010 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
An Alderman arrested due to corruption in Chicago - Say it isn't so! Par 4 the course. Aldermen being arrested is the norm. They are like shark teeth. Soon replaced with another and another.
About damn time, I've heard about "Chicago Corruption" since I was a child in 1950.
And Elliot Ness around the same time as well.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/04/2010 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The Great Flood of Katrina couldn't cleanse the corruption out of New Orleans. I suspect only the return of the ice sheet from the New Ice Age can scrape the corruption from the lake front.
The Maryland state prosecutor released a scathing memo Tuesday supporting the plea deal that will lead Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon to step down Thursday, calling her attitude "unrepentant" and "laughable." She's not, and won't be, sitting in jug.
The three-page memo blasted Dixon for failing to show any public contrition after a jury found her guilty in December of embezzling roughly $500 worth of retail gift cards. In January, Dixon also pleaded guilty to one count of perjury. "It seems Ms. Dixon's unrepentant position is that the people of Baltimore should be willing to tolerate some corruption from their political leaders," wrote State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh. "Such defiant arrogance by a political leader is simply unacceptable." Yet somehow we've been accepting it year after year... Rohrbaugh never does quite get around to explaining exactly why he's supporting the plea bargain ...
Later he wrote: "While the people of Baltimore are owed a full, complete and truthful explanation from their former mayor, it is probably too much to expect." The back of her hand, maybe...
Dixon's lead defense attorney, Arnold M. Weiner, declined to comment on the court filing. Dixon did not respond to requests for an interview. "Talk to me mout'piece!"
"Herronnor got nuttin' to say!"
The mayor will have a chance to speak Thursday at a sentencing hearing in Baltimore Circuit Court. Weiner declined to say whether Dixon plans to exercise that right. She's gonna get off. She's in the club and the fix is in. Bawlmer corruption doesn't even try to disguise itself since the Schmoke administration.
Last month, Dixon agreed to a plea deal that will allow her to expunge her criminal record and keep her $83,000 annual city pension in exchange for leaving office. Dixon also has to perform 500 hours of community service and donate $45,000 to charity. That's the fix I was talking about. She keeps her pension, she's got no criminal record -- meaning she can actually run again. 500 hours of "community service" equates to 500 hours of meeting with cronies and powering behind the throne. And the "charity" that gets the $45,000, if any, ain't gonna be the Salvation Army.
Rohrbaugh wrote that allowing Dixon to keep the pension was "difficult for everyone, including the prosecution team, to swallow." Nobody actually hollered "Hey, yo! Da fix is in!" but they might as well have...
The deal prohibits Dixon from using any taxpayer funds to pay her legal bills for what Rohrbaugh called her "stable" of seven attorneys. He estimated that her defense costs "might well exceed a million dollars." Privately, some defense attorneys have estimated that the cost could be twice that. Well, y'know she's an aging lady, scraping by on an $83K pension. I'm sure she's gonna pay it of at $30 a week.
Rohrbaugh's memo also raised issues that were never addressed in the mayor's theft trial, including questions about the source of what prosecutors calculated as $13,800 in unexplained cash that circulated through her checking account in early 2004 when she was dating Baltimore developer Ronald H. Lipscomb. "Was it just a coincidence that the cash was deposited at the exact moment she needed to pay for her extravagant purchases, including those Jimmy Choo shoes?" Rohrbaugh wrote, noting the designer shoes Dixon bought while she and Lipscomb were on a trip to Chicago. Those gifts were not disclosed on the mayor's city ethics forms. Heh heh. Bawlmer's got ethics forms. One of these days we'll have ethics.
But the prosecutor wrote that making the plea deal will let the city move on. "In doing so," Rohrbaugh concluded, "this defendant will finally become yesterday's news."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
One of the inmates the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department released early as part of an effort to reduce the state's prison population was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of attempted rape, less than 24 hours after getting out of jail, The Bee has learned.
Kevin Eugene Peterson got out of jail Monday night after serving about two months on a four-month sentence for violating probation on a prior felony conviction. Peterson was arrested 12 hours later, around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, on suspicion of an attempted rape involving a female counselor at the 1300 block of North C Street, a Sacramento Police Department spokesman said. He was booked into the Sacramento County jail at 3:21 p.m. Tuesday on suspicion of attempted rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment and violating the terms of his probation.
"Our greatest fear has occurred almost immediately after the early release of these inmates," said Christine Ward of the Crime Victims Action Alliance. "We are certain that we will see more of this as more inmates are released from jails and prisons."
Peterson has a criminal history including a 2008 felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. He pled guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison. On Dec. 2, he was sentenced to four months for violating the terms of his probation, according to court documents.
Traditionally inmates who exhibit good behavior while in custody are eligible to be released after serving two-thirds of their sentence. A law the Legislature passed late last year requires county jails to release inmates on good behavior after serving half the sentence, a change of about two months for most sentenced to a year.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Assault with a deadly weapon gets a one year sentence? Must not have been a firearm - I think simple unauthorized possession of such carries a longer sentence.
#4
A Police friend says "Some folks prefer it "Inside" they just can't cope and commit crimes simply to get back Inside as soon as released".
He then told me of a bank robber he knew who stood around and waited for the cops to arrive.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/04/2010 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I keep waiting and waiting for someone to tell me that the Demon-Sheep ad is a parody of a bad political attack ad ... but if her campaign paid for it, they were seriously ripped off. Or under the influence of drugs when they approved it.
#4
There is a small, vanishingly small but finite non-zero, chance that Fiorini's campaign was actually clever enough to intentionally produce an ad so stupid that it would immediately go viral. In the highly unlikely event that's the case it's quite brilliant.
#7
IMHO this is the republicans race to lose. Boxer is not popular and her "Call me Senator" remark made her look very foolish. No this isn't Fiorini's ad, but I like the idea of calling out the so-called conservatives. Many dumb Californians (like me) are just beginning to understand the fiscal mess that we have created. My car, real estate, and payroll taxes have gone up this year and there is talk of more taxes without cuts.
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Don't look now. But even as the bank bailout is winding down, another huge bailout is starting, this time for the Social Security system.
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.
Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.
The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).
This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
Why disregard the interest? Because as people like me have said repeatedly over the years, the interest, which consists of Treasury IOUs that the Social Security trust fund gets on its holdings of government securities, doesn't provide Social Security with any cash that it can use to pay its bills. The interest is merely an accounting entry with no economic significance.
Social Security hasn't been cash-negative since the early 1980s, when it came so close to running out of money that it was making plans to stop sending out benefit checks. That led to the famous Greenspan Commission report, which recommended trimming benefits and raising taxes, which Congress did. Those actions produced hefty cash surpluses, which until this year have helped finance the rest of the government.
There idiots actually must think there's a Magic Money Tree™ behind the White House. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/04/2010 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
Thought this money was supposed to be in trust and untouchable. Stupid me. So who robbed this fund?
#5
There idiots actually must think there's a Magic Money Tree behind the White House. >:-(
Actually Barbara, there IS, it's called a printing press, and this kind of misuse causes Zimbabwe style inflation.
I've long noticed that prices today are almost exactly 10 times 1960 prices, simply add another zero behind anything in 1960 and you have a 2010 price.
Example, in 1966 My father bought a new home (In Auburn Alabama) a brick three bedroom two bath split level (Front to back) For the astounding price of thirteen thousand dollars, Exactly one year's pay at the time. (Highway department Engineer, Building the Interstate 65 from Montgomery, to the Georgia line)
Now I can't find such a house for under 130.000 anywhere today.
I remember both ten and fifteen cent Hamburgers (15 If you wanted tomato and lettuce) and cokes were a dime
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/04/2010 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And a new phrase will enter to lexicon: Too big to bailout.
Posted by: ed ||
02/04/2010 16:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
RJ, real wages have stagnated or declined in the past 40 years for 90% of US workers. The top 1% have done well and the top 0.1% have done fantastic. It's a consequence of destruction of the real US economy and the consumption in one generation of 400 years of accumulated wealth. Now the liquid portion of wealth is gone and even the top 0.1% will see the bottom fall out.
Posted by: ed ||
02/04/2010 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Democrats don't believe in the Laffer Curve. They feel that they can just tax their way into increased revenue and at the same time balance out inequities.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible.
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program,
Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and spent.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income,
Under Clinton & Gore, up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
In the first poll taken following Tuesday's primary, Rep. Mark Kirk (R) leads Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) by 6 points.
The Rasmussen survey (Feb. 3, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%) finds the moderate Kirk leading 59%-22% among independents, and with a higher favorable rating (55%/33%) than Giannoulias (46%/39%). In his home state, 54% approve of the job President Obama is doing.
Kirk 46
Giannoulias 40
Und 10
To see other general election matchup polls between the two nominees, click here.
In a previous post on Big Government, I questioned why Senator Paul Kirk has not stepped down as the Senator from Massachusetts, as he should have on January 19th. Today, the attorney for Senator-elect Scott Brown stated in a letter Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick that Brown wanted the results of the January 19 election certified by 11 a.m. Thursday, so they could be forwarded to U.S. Senate officials for immediate action.
Governor Patrick's office also issued this statement via email today:
As the Lieutenant Governor stated earlier today, the Governor will convene the Governor's Council at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning and certify the results. This will ensure that Senator-elect Brown's request to receive the final paperwork by 11:00 a.m. tomorrow is fulfilled.
This stunning move by Brown and fulfillment by the governor's office forces Kirk to resign his seat--presenting problems for the Democrats as they move forward with the current Senate schedule, which includes the controversial M. Patricia Smith nomination.
This reversal comes days after several inquiries with the Brown campaign, in addition to Senator Mitch McConnell's office, as to why interim Senator Paul Kirk is still voting on legislation--providing the 60th vote in some cases--and preserving the Democrat supermajority in Congress.
I explained the Senate rules and customary application, including:
Many states limit the term of office for interim senators to the date set for the special election. In these cases, the term of the interim senator expires immediately upon the election of the popularly chosen successor, who serves the balance of the Senate term, whether it is a few weeks or several years.
Moreover, when an interim appointment is made late in the term, it is often customary for the interim senator to resign his or her seat immediately after the election, and for the governor to appoint the special election winner to serve the balance of the term. It is also customary, for the purposes of determining seniority, for the newly elected replacement senator to be sworn in as soon as possible.
Ignoring Senate tradition in order to prolong the power of a 60-vote supermajority, the Democrats continued to abuse their power and allowed Kirk to vote, passing controversial legislation, including raising the debt ceiling and the vote on cloture for M. Patricia Smith, to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor. The GOP has held up Smith's vote due to contradictions in her Senate testimony; Kirk provided the 60th vote yet again.
GOP sources in the Senate told me that they didn't press the timeline of Brown's swearing due to recent problems with seating Senator Roland Burris and Senator Al Franken. However, the issues surrounding Burris were self-inflicted by the Democrats, while the Franken controversy continued for months through a recount until resolved by the courts. (Lest we forget Franken trailed Coleman by 725 votes on election night.) The GOP falsely equates the Franken election and his requirement of an election certificate to the Brown election, which was a clean win.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Does Kirk get a Senator's lifetime pension and all the other perks now?
#2
Salary and benefits
The annual salary of each senator, as of 2009, is $174,000; the President pro tempore and party leaders receive $193,400. In June 2003, at least 40 of the then-senators were millionaires.
Along with earning salaries, senators receive retirement and health benefits that are identical to other federal employees, and are fully vested after five years of service. Senators are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). As it is for federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Under FERS, senators contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. The amount of a senator's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. The starting amount of a senator's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a members retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary. As of October 1, 2000, the average annual pension for members of Congress who have retired under CSRS is $52,464, and $46,932 for retirees under FERS-only or both FERS/CSRS.
#3
Brown's election was just to finish Kennedy's last term, and he won't be re-elected, so he won't make the five years and won't qualify for pension benefits. All he'll get is the $174k plus whatever influence he can acquire.
#4
....and retention of any campaign contributions. IIRC it's administratively converted to personal assets and subject to taxation, if not avoiding other loopholes well hidden by our civil 'servants'.
#6
tu, the stars were aligned and the Dems were complacent. While it's not IMPOSSIBLE for him to be re-elected, I find it highly unlikely, even if he does an outstanding job. Massachussetts is just too liberal for him to win against a halfway competently run campaign and an opponent who doesn't look like a centipede putting its feet in its mouth.
[Iran Press TV Latest] AIG is considering plans to pay its employees USD 100 million in bonuses using the bailout money it has received to keep afloat, with government officials saying the payments are legal.
The decision by the American International Group to pay special bonuses, similar to those paid a year earlier, has unleashed a political frenzy with critics arguing that the company should not use the taxpayers' money to pay big bonuses to its employees.
The US government paymaster, Kenneth Feinberg, who is in charge of examining how the bailout money is spent and paid back, defended AIG's decision arguing that the payments, despite creating outrage, were made based on legally binding contracts.
"These are old grandfather contracts that have the legal force of law," Feinberg told ABC's Good Morning America on Wednesday, AFP reported.
The payments, confirmed by a source close to the matter, were part of a deal in which employees agreed to accept less than they were owed to in exchange for early payouts. The move was an effort to stem the outrage that occurred last year.
Republican Senator Charles Grassley said by paying the new bonuses, "AIG has taxpayers over a barrel. The Obama administration has been outmaneuvered."
Feinberg, however, dismissed the Republican's claim, saying that the payments would end in March. "It ends this March with the last of these retention payments. Another month or so, these old, guaranteed bonuses will be a thing of the past," he said.
The bonuses by the giant insurance company have their roots in employment contracts signed in 2007 that fall outside the jurisdiction of Feinberg, who is responsible for monitoring where the bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program ends up.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These are old grandfather contracts that have the legal force of law Such contracts are trumped by bankruptcy. They would have been voided had AIG gone under.
#3
Obama should just issue an executive order nullifying those contracts. After all, he is the President (and above even the czars).
/sarcasm
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
02/04/2010 7:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
These are contractural obligations as I understand it, to not pay them would be breach of contract...outmaneuvered? Congress and President just handed out all that money without accountability or conditions. The theory was that even though the executives may or may not have been part of the problem they needed to stay in place as they were/are familiar with the system and needed to get it fixed. Does it look bad, sure, but this is what happens when negotiating without preconditions. If the grapes are sour, then maybe Congress/President should have taken an extra week or more to get the ducks lined up before signing a blank check.
#6
The payments, confirmed by a source close to the matter, were part of a deal in which employees agreed to accept less than they were owed to in exchange for early payouts.
Just the other day Timothy Geithner called the AIG bonuses an "outrageous failure of policy." Ironic, isnt it, that it was Feinberg and Geithner himself who negotiated the terms. Lets be clear. The whole scheme was cooked to delay the publics outrage over the first bonus dough. Its also important to note that the agreement was that current AIG employees would accept 10 percent cutbacks to receive a bonus. And employees who already left the company must take 20 percent cuts. Just remember, when Obama feigns rightous indignation and calls for Bank fees to recoup taxpayer dollars it was his Treasury Department that cut this deal in the first place.
As Congress begins picking through President Obama's vast election year budget, many Democratic incumbents and candidates seem to be finding something they love -- to campaign against.
A Democratic Senate candidate in Missouri denounced the budget's sky-high deficit. A Florida Democrat whose district includes the Kennedy Space Center hit the roof over NASA budget cuts. And an endangered Senate Democrat denounced proposed cuts in farm subsidies.
A headline on the 2010 campaign website of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), blares her opposition to Obama's farm budget: ``Blanche stands up for Arkansas farm families,'' it says.
Heading into an election season in which Republicans are trying to tie Democrats to Obama's unpopular policies, Obama's budget gives his fellow Democrats an unlikely campaign tool -- a catalogue of ways to establish their distance from controversial aspects of his administration.
It is a time-tested campaign tactic for politicians to declare their independence of party leaders. But the tactic is particularly important for Democrats this year, because their party dominates Washington, and being an insider is a political liability in an anti-incumbent climate.
Underscoring that dynamic, Obama held a question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats on Wednesday, drawing polite challenges from a procession of incumbents up for reelection.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), a recent party-switcher, questioned trade policies battering the steel industry. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) asked about health care for first responders involved in the Sept. 11attack. The message from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.): ``California is hurting.''
All that underscores a potential gap between Obama's governing agenda and congressional Democrats' political interest in the election. While Democrats on the ballot encounter stiff headwinds, Obama is asking them look at the big picture on the budget, take on tough issues, and let the politics take care of themselves.
``If anybody's searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you, the answer is not to do nothing," Obama told the Senate Democrats. "We've got to finish the job on health care. We've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. We've got to finish the job, even though it's hard."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
``If anybody's searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you, the answer is not to do nothing," Obama told the Senate Democrats. "We've got to finish the job on health care. We've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. We've got to finish the job, even though it's hard."
South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford says the final blow to her marriage came when racy e-mails between Gov. Mark Sanford and his mistress were published.
She also tells ABC's Barbara Walters in an interview airing Friday on 20/20 that she made a "leap of faith" marrying Sanford more than 20 years ago because he insisted on removing a clause promising to be faithful from their wedding vows.
The show released excerpts of Sanford's interview with Walters, which coincides with publication of her memoir, Staying True.
In the interview, Jenny Sanford says the e-mails where her husband talked about his lover's body parts were not something anyone would want their children to read on the Internet. They were published last year by The State newspaper in Columbia, appearing online the same day the governor returned from a five-day absence -- his staff told reporters he was hiking the Appalachian Trail-- to admit an affair with an Argentine woman.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/04/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She also tells ABC's Barbara Walters in an interview airing Friday on 20/20 that she made a "leap of faith" marrying Sanford more than 20 years ago because he insisted on removing a clause promising to be faithful from their wedding vows.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards reportedly beat his cancer-stricken wife during a horrific marriage-ending fight. "John lost his temper big time," a close friend of Elizabeth's revealed to the National Enquirer. 
Are the Wheels Coming Off the Chicago Machine?
The Maryland state prosecutor released a scathing memo Tuesday supporting the plea deal that will lead Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon to step down Thursday, calling her attitude "unrepentant" and "laughable."
[Iran Press TV Latest] AIG is considering plans to pay its employees USD 100 million in bonuses using the bailout money it has received to keep afloat, with government officials saying the payments are legal. 
