NY-22 challenger Mike Kicinski speaks about campaign to Southern Tier Tea Party

Before the election in November, Republicans and Democrats in New York will be selecting who they want to represent them at all levels of Government. On June 26th, one of the races for Republicans will be between one-term incumbent Rep. Richard Hanna (of the former NY-24) and challenger Michael Kicinski. This battle will be for whom constituents in the new redistricted New York 22nd Congressional will have represent their values in the November election.

Many residents of the newly created NY-22 are still unaware of the change that has occured. Many still do not realize that at the end of the year Rep. Maurice Hinchey will retire, and with his departure the highly gerrymandered former NY-22 will cease to exist as it does today. This gives all the candidates and incumbents a difficult road to travel.

Rep. Richard Hanna must introduce himself to a host of constituents that likely never saw his campaign commercials or speeches in 2010. At the same time, Rep Hanna must compete with failed expectations that some in the Tea Party claim. The Tea Party was a major supporter of Rep. Hanna in 2010.

This dissatisfaction has lead Michael Kicinski to run for office against Rep. Hanna. Having gained placement on the June 26th ballot, Mr. Kicinski is now moving ahead with his effort to win the the Primary battle, the first step in claiming a seat in Congress to represent Central New York.

We must note that we are in talks with Mr. Kicinski for an interview. We have not yet confirmed a date for that interview, but once in place we will provide further details to readers. We look forward to interviewing Mr. Kicinski, and providing our readers in Central and Southern New York the opportunity to learn more about him.

On May 2nd, at the Vestal Public Library in Vestal, New York we were able to catch up with Mr. Kicinski and cover his speech to the Southern Tier Tea Party. This was part of the regularly scheduled meetings for the Southern Tier Tea Party. In attendance were some 30 – 40 concerned constituents, who listened intently as Mr. Kicinski spoke.

Here is the full video of Mr. Kicinski’s speech, followed by the Q & A afterwards.

M V Consulting, Inc does NOT advocate any candidate or incumbent in any local, State, or national election. We seek to provide the broadest coverage and information on each candidate and incumbent so that voters may make an informed decision on how they want to vote – whatever that vote may be.

Commentary: the ‘Illegal’ slur

While watching the news tonight I ran across an amazing story. Reports on a movement that is seeking to end discrimination and dehuminization. You might think this is about slurs against gays, or calling African Americans the n-word, or insults against women – but you would be wrong. No, the protest du juor is against the use of the word illegal, when used in conjunction with alien.

Illegal alien is a term that is defined as “a person who has entered the country without official authorization”. Obviously you can see how such a definition dehumanizes those it is applied to. How it denigrates nationalities and impedes their ability to live.

At least that is what MoveOn.org and others on the far-left would like Americans to believe. To quote their Youtube effort to create a arguement where none existed before,

“…it’s racially charged, legally inaccurate, and morally wrong…”

Where exactly is the racial aspect of the word illegal alien? A person, as it is defined, could be from anywhere in the world – of any sex, age, gender, religion, and nationality. You can be an illegal alien in China if you enter the nation without documentation and permission and you are from France. You can be a Belgian woman trying to enter Canada and be an illegal alien. You bould be a Buddhist monk trying to enter South Africa and be an illegal alien. So in using the legal term in America, how does it suddenly become racial?

Perhaps the focus should be on the moral aspect. The problem is I cannot envision a single example of how a legal term that is used internationally, and is entrenched in sovereign law in every nation on the planet, is immoral. How does a legal term describing an action that violates law itself become the expressing or teaching a conception of wrong behavior?

Thus we are left with the charge by MoveOn.org that the legal term illegal alien is inaccurate. An alien, in legal terms defining a native of a nationality, is someone from outside the borders, jurusdiction, and sovereignty of a nation. When I lived in Moscow, Russia I was an ex-pat or alien, because I was an American living in a foreign land. Anyone in a nation other than their own is an outsider, visitor, or alien to the nation they are residing in.

Illegal should be self explanitory. Not legal. simple and straight forward, no need or capability to misinterpert the word. Anyone with a 6th grade reading level can understand the word.

Combining the 2 words and legal terms equates to the definition above. American federal law makes it a crime to enter the nation without documentation and the expressed permission of the United States as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Further the issue of citizenship and the existence of illegal aliens goes back to 1790, greatly amended by the Hart-Celler Act, and futher amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, among other laws inbetween.

There is no question that entering a nation, in this case America but you can substitute any nation, without legal right is a crime and therfore illegal – those doing so being aliens to that nation and thus illegal aliens.

The argument for MoveOn.org and the far-left seems to fall apart, once you stop feeding emotions and think about what is being said. But let me take a differnt tack.

Is it disparaging to call a bank robber a bank robber? Or a child molestor exactly that (or pedophile if you prefer)? Is that not an exact description of their crimes. Should we instead call a bank robber a financially challenged individual who seeks criminal means to gain monetary infusions? Seriously.

Since it is obvious that to call a person that has actively committed a crime a criminal, would MoveOn and the far-left prefer that illegal aliens be called criminal aliens? Or just criminals. Or is that too racially and morally unjust (albeit accurate).

Better yet, let’s look at why, suddenly, there is this fabricated push to make the term illegal alien taboo. Why now and why taboo?

After decades of arguments and attempts to pass laws absolving illegal aliens of their crime – entering the U.S. without permission or Right – now the term illegal alien is being labeled as racial and immoral. That’s after the fact that the term “undocumented worker” has failed to take hold as it is a reminder that the reason they are criminals is because they actively failed to get documentation to legally be in the country. So an new package had to be created to get the right emotional strings pulled.

At the same time, this is an election year. The incumbent President is widely seen as being in danger of losing his bid at re-election. The focal point of his election in 2008 was the economy and jobs – which he has failed to improve according to the standards and criteria the President himself establish as watermarks he must attain.
A secondary point was improvement on the national debt – which has failed so badly as to cause the nation to have its credit rating downgraded for the first time in the national history. The President needs distraction from his record to be able to maintain a successful bid at re-election.

Given these facts, the far-left has taken the opportunity to gin up an issue that does not exist in the manner they are now promoting to help politically a President that desperately needs help. Its an act that defines the President as weak and a failure in my opinion.

Perhaps MoveOn.org and the far-left think America is too stupid to understand what they are doing. Perhaps they believe that if they shout long and loud enough they will create a feeling of guilt and shame people into acting the way they want. Perhaps they believe by making the issue emotional they will fare better than their actions to logically win the argument have. I doubt any of these things will happen.

I equally doubt that anyone will be distracted from the key points of the 2012 Presidential election – the record of President Obama and the potential of Mitt Romney. Most of all I do not believe that even the most ardent pro-open borders advocate will accept the farcical, and by definition false, claim being made.

Illegal aliens are undocumented workers – which makes them criminals, and a problem in the nation. The resolution of the problem will never be found in name calling, nor ficticous labels. MoveOn.org and the far-left are doing nothing to help their position, in fact they are likely hurting it by distracting from any real argument they can make.

But I welcome any real, factual, definitive argument that MoveOn.org and its ilk can make to substantiate the claim they are making. Just don’t hold your breath as you wait for them to do so.

By Michael Vass

The 2012 Presidential electoral landscape as of now

Over a year ago (April 6, 2011) we took a critical look at the electoral college obstacles that President Obama must hurdle to become re-elected. That focus was solely based on the President as there was no Republican candidate that was assured to be his competition.

August 10, 2011 we again reviewed our outlook on the likely breakdown of the electoral college. We updated all the figures and took into account the changes in the nation and world at the time. Just as in February, we were ahead of the curve among our peers on our predictions. But how accurate were we? What is the outlook today?

The consensus of our thoughts in April 2011 can be summed up in the following quote from our article

“…Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana in that order of importence. No less than 3 of these states must be won in order to gain the Presidency.”

Critical to our conclusion were several factors including: Approval rating and changes over time for that rating, unemployment levels in critical States, changes in electoral vote counts, and to a lesser degree world and current events. Also critical was our selection of the 11 States that are likely to determine the next President.

In April 2011 President Obama had an approval rating of 46.6% (based on the Real Clear Politics average of all polls). In August 2011 that approval rating was at 43.5%. As of this article the approval rating stands at 48.3%. In total, President Obama has been under 50% approval consistently since December 2009 – with an exception for the last week of January 2011 and the month of May 2011.

Only 2 other Presidents have had comparable approval ratings in their 13th Quarter as President Obama’s (approval for the 13th Quarter was 45.9%) – George H.W. Bush (41.8%) and Jimmy Carter (47.7%). Both lost their re-election bids.

The change in approval for the following 11 key States from 2010 to 2011 was (according to Gallup):

Colorado – down 4.8% to 40.4%
Florida – down 2.2% to 43.6%
Indiana – down 3.8% to 40.1%
Iowa – down 1.9% to 45.6%
Nevada – down 5.7% to 41.3%
New Hampshire – down 2.6% to 38.7%
North Carolina – down 3.2% to 43.7%
Ohio – down 5.3% to 42.1%
Oregon – down 3.3% to 44.5%
Pennsylvania – down 1.3% to 45%
Virginia – down 2.1% to 44.5%

All of the Presidential approval polling indicates that President Obama is in fact an underdog to be re-elected. We come to this conclusion as the data is showing a consistent and negative trend that is years long in some cases. Comparisons to other troubled past Presidents indicates that the outcome is not in favor of President Obama.

We also considered previously the status of the abovementioned 11 States unemployment levels, which are currently (According to Bureau of Labor Statistics March 2012 preliminary):

Colorado – 7.8% down 2.5% from April 2011
Florida – 9.0% down 2.5%
Indiana – 8.2% down .6%
Iowa – 5.2% down .9%
Nevada – 12.0% down 1.6%
New Hampshire – 5.2% down .2%
North Carolina – 9.7% Unchanged
Ohio – 7.5% down 1.7%
Oregon – 8.6% down 1.6%
Pennsylvania – 7.5% down .4%
Virginia – 5.6% down .8%

The average for these 11 States is 7.85% unemployment, down 1.07% since April 2011. We did not figure in underemployment numbers which are very different. We held that 8% unemployment was a threshhold figure in our calculations.

Further, the national defict is another critical factor that has once again come to the forefront of American politics. In May 2011 the debt limit was surpassed at $14.29 trillion. It was subsequently increased and currently is at $15.6 trillion. Projections by the CBO show that continuing to increase under stated plans by the White House.

An additional factor that exists now that did not in 2011 is the presence of a defined Republican candidate – Mitt Romney. The current Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that President Obama leads Mitt Romney by 3.9% – 47.7% to 43.8%.

We also will note that according to Real Clear Politics 11 States are in dispute. All of the choices we listed above match, except Indiana and Oregon are replaced with Arizona and Missouri. Yahoo News believes that Indiana, Oregon, and Pennsylvania are not up for grabs, but otherwise also matches our evaluation.

Lastly there is the poll showing satisfaction with the way things are going

Poll and data from Gallup.com - 4/18/12

Thus we conclude that we were correct in August 2011 when we said

“Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana in that order of importence for an electoral victory. Further, he [President Obama] must win at least 3 of these to have any chance of victory in 2012. We based that on the assumption that President Obama will win 18 States (strongly or leaning Democrat) that he carried in 2008.”

Having reviewed the data, we believe that the true States in contention at this time are: Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

We believe that Florida, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia will all go to Mitt Romney. New Hamphire and Colorado are likely to be narrowly won by President Obama if they can maintain or decrease the current unemployment levels.

Therefore, we expect that based on current factors the 2012 Presidential Election could be Mitt Romney 272 – President Obama 220 with 44 electoral college votes up for grabs.

Obviously there are many factors that may alter this calculation.

The performances in the debates, as well as the selection of a Vice Presidential candidate for Romney will be critical. The changes in unemployment and underemployment, decisions by the Supreme Court, and any legislation by Congress could also severely alter the outlook. Which does not begin to factor further deterioration of European economies (Greece and Spain in particular), tensions in the Middle East (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Iran nukes, Israeli pre-emptive strikes), North Korean actions (nuclear tests and misle launches), or natural disasters.

Even so, we believe that without dramatic occurances the current electoral landscape is against President Obama. We will continue to update this as the election draws nearer.

***Only your support allows us to provide event coverage; interviews with politicians; coverage of local, State, and national elections; and political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, by a gift or 2 – there is something for everyone. We thank you for all your help***

Could your IRA be the next source of Government funding?

Estimates are that 70% of American households have a retirement savings plan. 46.8 million American households have some form of IRA’s. 60% of households have employer sponsored plans of which employee contributions are capped at $16,500 annually. Households age 50 or older, since 2002, are allowed to make “catch-up” contributions of up to $5,500 to their IRA savings. In 2011

“According to Fidelity Investments, the number of investors under age 30 who last year made tax-deductible contributions to a traditional IRA jumped 16 percent. The number was up 9 percent for Roth IRAs (which have no upfront tax deduction, but qualified withdrawals are tax-free).”

In total, IRA’s accounted for $3.5 trillion in assets at the end of 2008 – as the current recession was just ramping up and after the economic crisis had devastated portfolio’s. Today the sum is far higher.

Trillions of dollars, protected from taxes and unusable by the Federal Government which is desperate for funds to reduce a growing national deficit that is just under $16 trillion. Considering the Obama Administration continues to move forward with budget plans that call for over $1 trillion dollars being added to the national debt each year, is anyone surprised that plans are being discussed to tap into this slush fund of liquid cash?

As has already been reported by Mark Miller of Reuters Money

“President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommended capping combined employee/employer pre-tax contributions to 401(k)s at $20,000 or 20 percent of income, whichever is lower.”

Already you might be saying so what? Some might think that the extra 20% is money in their pocket and they have bills to pay. Some might say that those wealthy people that save so much in an IRA deserve to have their taxes raised and the money used by the Government.

In fact, every dollar the Government takes from an IRA, they are stealing tens if not hundreds or thousands of dollars out of your pocket. That’s regardless of your income bracket.

Let’s assume you are an Average Joe. You make $30,000 annually and put away $3,000 between employee/employer contributions. It brings you annual income to $27,000 on which you pay taxes.

If the Government moves forward, you will be limited to $2,400 in the deduction. That raises your income to $27,600 which you will pay the additional taxes on. Which is what the Government wants, more tax revenue.

But the equation is not done.

The Rule of 7 is an old but reliable way to figure out an investment like an IRA. It is derived from the mathematical formula for the Rule of 72.

Space: a frontier to be explored by business not Government

The Obama Administration is very clear on its view of millionaires, billionaires, and business – they have too much and the Government needs it. Some would argue that this compliments the view of some Liberals and Democrats that social justice can only be attained by Government intervention. None can dispute that President Obama believes that redistribution of wealth is essential and that the Government is needed to do so – his comments to Joe the Plumber during the 2008 presidential campaign made that very clear.

What does that have to do with space? A lot.

The Obama re-election campaign, and Administration, have made huge efforts to target business and the “rich”. The Buffett Rule is perhaps the most recent and well know advance to redistribute wealth, garner votes, and empower the Government to spend more. The reasoning is that Government is best at deciding where the money held by the “rich” should be dedicated. An example of this is the Obama Stimulus, which proponents claim prevented a depression and has created or “saved” upwards of 3 millon jobs.

But Government, under President Obama, is also visionless and Earth-bound. Eugene Cernan, of Apollo 17, stated about the Obama Administration policies in regard to NASA

“For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature.”

In trying to manage helathcare (the Health Care Reform law), green technology (Solyndra), the auto industry (GM), and other activities the Government cannot also reach beyond itself. The effort to micromanage defeats the desire to search the stars. Which resulted in the cancellation of NASA’s Constellation program, rejection of plans to return to the Moon, and a dependance on use of privately funded and created intersetellar crafts.

Thus companies like Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) with their Falcon 9 are the true future for outer space. In fact, while the cut-back NASA is seeking to mine 2 ounces of material from an asteroid under the Origins Spectral Interpretation Resource Identification Security Regolith Explorer [OSIRIS-REx] program(at a cost of roughly $1 billion), Planetary Resources is laying down the plans to commercially mine whole asteroids (at an uncalculated cost estimated to be in the billions of dollars). The vision of gathering extra-planetary resources is being pioneered by the very same billionaires being demonized for not paying their fair share (in this case Google co-founder Larry Page and chairman Eric Schmidt, former Microsoft chief architect and space tourist Charles Simonyi, and former Microsoft CTO David Vaskevitch).

The comparison is stark. As Government abandons space, the “rich” are looking to explore it. As the Government looks to take from the “rich”, those same people are using their vast wealth to do what the Government can not – creating jobs and spurring new industry growth.

So imagine if the proponents of social justice and redistribution could have their way. Imagine that the Buffett Rule and other new taxes were put in place. Would Larry Page still have the funds to build rockets and robots to mine asteroids? Would the growth in people being taken care of by Government entitlement programs equate to the loss of the stars and the much needed resources they contain? Would a Government ever more concerned about micromanaging individual lives, be a worthy reward to stagnate or retard the exploration of our solar system and all the innovations and inventions and jobs it could create?

Recent polling shows that 42% of Americans believe that free market investments have made America great. Those investments came from people like Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and others. People that the Obama Administration, Liberals, and Democrats would like you to believe are doing nothing with their wealth except hoarding it like modern day dragons.

Thus the question that lays before the American people is simply this: Do you want to look up at the stars and wonder, or sit in your home waiting for a Government check?

The actions of the Obama Administration seem to demonstrate their answer. Do you agree with it?

***Only your support allows us to provide event coverage; interviews with politicians; coverage of local, State, and national elections; and political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, by a gift or 2 – there is something for everyone. We thank you for all your help***

Video and thoughts on the 2012 NY Annual Republican Dinner with Newt Gingrich and Gov. Bobby Jindal

The New York Annual Republican Dinner featured two particullary important speakers this year. The first was Newt Gingrich, who is continuing with his challenge to get the Republican nomination versus frontrunner and presumed nominee Mitt Romney. The other was Louisianna Governor Bobby Jindal, who is among the top contenders for the Vice President slot alongside Mitt Romney in facing incumbent President Obama and VP Biden.

The $1000 a plate event was held at the New York Sheraton, on 53rd and 7th Ave. It was a packed house in the Sheraton’s ballroom, with our rough headcount placing some 700 attendees at the event. It is worth noting that the event included no less than 50 African Americans, as well as representation from the diversity of New York City. We note this because the common image of the GOP is one that would have the public believe that only old White men would be at the event. Such a biased view of any organization should be debunked whenever possible.

The evening started with comments from NY Republican Party Chairman Edward Cox. This was followed by an innvocation by Rev. Canon Andrew J. W. Mullins. Immediately after that Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich began to speak. It was a clockwork order that was on-time, because due to severe transportation issues and mechanical difficulty we began taping after Gingrich had gone half way through his speach. So much for inefficiency and the delay normally noted with politics and politicians.

While we will present only half of what Gingrich stated, what we did get was very clear. He highlighted the path to the Presidency from his view. He clarified why he is continuing to be in the race versus Mitt Romney. He emphasized the need for Party unity and that the singular goal was ensuring that President Obama did not get a second term, which would allow for the restoration of America.

The message was not filled with the urgency of a candidate seeking to win the upcomming NY Primary. It was not the rally call to raise up funds for his political campaign. Rather it was an intense pursuit of the need to define the vision of the Republican Party for 2012, and to predict a seachange in the lopsided balance of power in New York State.

{Due to technical difficaulties a visual edit was done to the video, we do appologize}

After Former Speaker Gingrich finished speaking, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal took the podium. The event included the book, Leadership and Crisis, written by the keynote speaker recounting parts of his life, his conservative views and how he gained them, and his observations on Government (both run well and poorly) with particular emphasis on the Gulf oil spill.

Gov. Jindal is a very interesting individual. He is considered one of the top choices to be the runningmate of Mitt Romney. The combination does make sense. With the Romney-Jindal matchup Republicans present 2 Governors, each with experience and success at running States. Gov. Jindal is very well-eduacated (Brown and Oxford), even arguably more academically that President Obama. Gov. Jindal as spent decades defending his conservative principles to liberals that outnumbered him, and initially found him misguided or wrong-headed. He is intimately aware of the impact and neccessity of domestic oil and energy independance, as well as the need for education reform that is effective.

Though few will speak about it, Gov. Jindal also is important for the things that Democrats either assume they have a lock on, or find unimportant. Gov. Jindal is the first generation son of an immigrant family. He is a devout Christian. He is one of a few politicians of color to have acheived a Governorship for more than 1 term in the Deep South. He grew up in a working-class family. He has appeal for fiscal conservatives as well as addressing the concern for job growth.

Ultimately Gov. Jindal provide his own reasons why President Obama should be a 1 term President, even though he considers the President a likeable guy. Perhaps the most telling item was the manner in which Gov. Jndal, through his experience came to see that the President is a very booksmart man, surrounded by equally booksmart individuals – and the weakness of being such.

Thus his speech is not only a rally for Republicans in New York, it is an outreach for moderates and Independants that will surely see the soundbites of the event if not our video. It may also be the first glimpse into a Vice President campaign.

There were other speakers later in the dinner event, and we will cover them shortly. But we are left with an interestig thought. Could the NY GOP Dinner be in indicator of the 2012 Republican Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney was the keynote speaker in 2011)? It is possible.

The real conclusion to be drawn from the event is that politics in New York, like the rest of the country, is hardly as cookie-cutter simplistic as many in the media would like it to seem. As “blue” as New York is dismissively considered by pundits and pollsters, there is no doubt that a Republican presence not only exists but is growing. The Annual Republican Dinner, though not a media draw on any major scale, provides a real insight to the divesity of the NY GOP, as well as the foothold of conservatism across the country.

**if there are news organizations that would like to get a copy of the orignal video of the event, please contact us directly**

Visit Alchemy at World of VASS. Your financial support helps us to get to events and provide coverage. We appreciate all the support you provide.

At NY GOP Dinner with Gov. Jindal and Newt Gingrich

Sitting in the New York Sheraton Hotel, where Republican nominee candidate Newt Gingrich has just finished speaking. Louisiana Gov Jindal is speaking now.

We will be going over more detail shortly, but for now we just want to give an overview. The ballroom is full with about 700 attendees. There is no lack of media attention, at least 1 apparently from overseas. As far as we can tell we are the only ones from Binghamton or the Southern Tier of NY.

Look for our video of the event shortly.

So far both speakers have covered issues such as energy independance, education, and republican values.

***Only your support allows us to provide event coverage; interviews with politicians; coverage of local, State, and national elections; and political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, by a gift or 2 – there is something for everyone. We thank you for all your help***

White House tries to pitch “Tax Fairness” with fuzzy math

In an election year there is no end to the ways that an incumbent President will spin hot button issues to gain the attention of voters. At times this is for the benefit of the nation, at others it is for the benefit of a re-election effort. Depending on your view the “Buffet Rule” could be either. But as spun by the Obama Administration it appears to clearly be one not the other.

The “Buffett Rule”, now simply refered to as “tax fairness”, is at its heart a tax hike on successful and wealthy Americans. It increases the required tax payment on those that comprise the very top incomes of the nation. That is regardless if the income is derived from investments (paid for with already taxes savings over a lifetime of risk and patience, and further taxed after successful investment), inheritence, success in creating/developing businesses small and large, or any other endeavour (like success in entertainment/sports/winng the lottery ect).

The Buffet Rule or tax fairness is defined by some as a form of social justice. This is the latest incarnation of the purpose of the Rule. It started out as an alternative to the Alternative Minimum Tax – which was debunked by tax experts. The most that could be expected currently from the tax fairness is that .3% of taxpayers would wind up paying $47 billion more in taxes over 10 years. A figure that does not even begin to address the $18.8 trillion in national debt at the end of 10 years in any meaningful manner.

Thus came about the view that states it is a moral, and according to Vice President Biden “patriotic”, imperative. That having acheived wealth in excess of the average American requires a high hurdle of taxes, to allow the Government to then use these funds to redistribute to the public via entitlement programs. Programs that are created and manipulated by the poltical whims of whatever Administration is in power at the time.

The result of such entitlement programs is the majority of the non-discrectionary spending annually by the Government (SSI, Unemployment, Medicaid, Medicare, ect). It is also the key to the deficit spending by the Government, as exemplified by the slush-fund manner in which Social Security funds are used for other Government spending (19% of 2010 non-discrectionary spending). A system that has created the real and upcoming bankruptcy of Social Security – delayed only by the speed of future spending by the Government.

Others define the Buffett Rule or tax fairness as economic class warfare. They highlight the fact that consistently 40 – 50% of the American taxpaying public either receive a refund or owe no Federal taxes each year (51% in 2009). The reality is that consistently the top 10% of earners pay some 60 – 70% of all income taxes taken in each year (73% in 2007 according to CBO).

In addition, as we have previously highlighted, there is nothing preventing any American from donating whatever funds they choose to the IRS. Even Warren Buffett, which the Rule is named after, failed to donate a dime to the IRS – even as he rallied support to created a means to force the “uber-rich” to pay more in taxes. In fact, until Buffett was embarrassed by a Rep. Scott Rigell of VA who has contributed more voluntatily to the IRS and thus forced Buffett to match that contribution, Buffett has never paid a dime voluntarily to the IRS. [It should be noted that one of the corporations that Warren Buffett controls is currently being audited by the IRS]

The White House sought to highlight their view on the issue of tax fairness in a video yesterday.

Sadly, the manner in which the White House comes to these conclusions is a fabrication and an example of political opportunism rather than fact it turns out (as reported on Fox News at 12:10pm April 18, 2012). The tax percentages cited are impossible to duplicate for income taxes without manipulation to alter the results. Based on income taxes only the real numbers are closer to 7%, 10%, and 14% with the highest incomes at 18.9% tax rates – which is a progressive income tax rate.

As Roberton Williams at Tax Policy Center said in February 2012

“On average, middle-income households will pay 2015 taxes totaling about 15 percent of their income (using the legislation’s definition). Without the Buffett rule, more than 99 percent of millionaires will pay more than that and only about 4,000 will pay less.”

Thus the question that should be asked is, if the White House must alter the math to generate numbers that present a positve image of the Buffett Rule – and that Rule cannot do what it was initial touted to do, and it fails to do more for the economy than is already being done by existing tax law – how is this more than just class warefare designed to pander to voters?

***Only your support allows us to provide event coverage; interviews with politicians; coverage of local, State, and national elections; and political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, by a gift or 2 – there is something for everyone. We thank you for all your help***

3rd annual Tea Party Tax Day Rally

We were contacted by the Norwich Tea Party Patriots about the upcoming 3rd annual Tax Day Rally, to be held on April 14th. We were not available to speak at the event, but we did want to pass on some of the details of the event.

There are more than 8 speakers planned for the event:

Debi Cody – NY Right to Life
Hana Cook
Mike Kicinski – candidate for the newly created NY 22nd Congressional district
Shaun Marie – Executive Vice Chairman of the NYS Conservative Party
Bill Park – Liberty Council
Beth Powers – Liberty Bus (created in 2010 and touring the nation)
Sheryl Thomas – host of the Sheryl Thomas Radio Show
Max Tollens – businessman
James Sacco – constitutional lawyer

The event is scheduled to start at 11AM and go on until 6PM. It will be located at East Side Park in downtown Norwich on State Route 12 (also called North Broad Street). Refreshments will be available, and a live performance by the band, Merle Matts and Friends.

The Tea Party movement (Taxed Enough Already) was first started on April 15, 2009. There are at least 647 organizations (based on a Washington Post October 2010 canvas) across the nation with estimated membership in the millions, each separate of any other organization to varying degrees, unified by a belief in fiscal discipline and a return to stricter adherence to the Constitution.

***Only your support allows us to provide event coverage; interviews with politicians; coverage of local, State, and national elections; and political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, by a gift or 2 – there is something for everyone. We thank you for all your help***

Response about flood relief funding from Mayor Matt Ryan and Assemblywoman Lupardo

6 months after the New York State Assembly and Senate put forth legislation to help local governments deal with the impact of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has taken action. The announcement this afternoon was that $60.9 million would be provided by the State Government to cover the recovery and disaster relief of Counties across the State of New York.

The normal process requires that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) usually covers 75% of eligible disaster response and recovery costs, and the remaining 25% is typically shared equally by the State and localities. In 2006, after the 100-year flood of the time, New York State covered the cost to local government. On October 14, 2011 Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo introduced Bill A08654A – which asked to again have the 12.5% required of local government to be covered by the State. The Bill did not mention where those funds were to come from.

The action by Gov. Cuomo will take funds from the “Millionaire’s Tax” among other sources to pay for the share of monies that local governments were to have paid. This payment will help the hardest hit areas: Schoharie County ($102.5 million for recovery projects – $12 million previously due from local governments), Broome County ($75.2 million – $9.4 million) and Tioga County ($57.4 million – $12.8 million) are the top 3 Counties.

State Senator Tom Libous said earlier today,

“Our area was hit hard by flooding and by its after effects, which our local governments are struggling to afford. Many municipalities are faced with doing nothing or raising property taxes to cover the local share of the recovery. We worked with Governor Cuomo to have the state pick up this cost so that we can continue moving forward without harming our local taxpayers.”

Our request to speak with Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan was declined, though the Office of the Mayor did provide the following response on the Governor’s announcement

“Today’s news is very encouraging. The City incurred a variety of costs in last fall’s flood, but this State allocation will help us cover them and limit the impact on local taxpayers. We greatly appreciate the State’s continued attention to our flood recovery needs, and we look forward to bouncing back stronger than ever.”

We were able to speak with Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo about Bill A08654A that she introduced, as well as the impact to constituents. We were also able to get a moment to follow-up on a press release today about the potential of becoming the NY State Assembly Majority Leader, as well as the prior questions of redistricting and a potential run for the newly created 22nd Congressional District currently held by Richard Hanna.

As of 2/7/12 Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee have led to 61,133 applications for aid from FEMA totaling $154 million. The impact on small and local businesses is reflected in the $131 million in low interest loans approved by the SBA (as of 2/7/12).

***Only your support allows us to provide event coverage; interviews with politicians; coverage of local, State, and national elections; and political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, by a gift or 2 – there is something for everyone. We thank you for all your help***