energy chair Rep. Fred Upton, Supported By Tea Party Polluters incl Koch Industries, Flips On Threat Of Global Warming #p2 @gop #tcot

from http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/28/upton-phillips-carbon/

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, incoming energy chair Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) joined Americans For Prosperity (AFP) president Tim Phillips, a global warming denier, to support the lawsuits by global warming polluters against climate rules. One of the companies leading the charge against the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas endangerment finding is Koch Industries, the private pollution giant whose billionaire owners have been directing the Tea Party movement through its AFP front group.

Upton once considered a "moderate on environmental issues," but has worked hard to refashion himself as a hard-right defender of pollution in recent months. Some Tea Party groups tried to block Upton from taking the gavel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, attacking his past support for energy-efficient light bulbs. Upton previously claimed that "climate change is a serious problem" and that "the world will be better off" if we reduced carbon emissions. However, in the course of the past two years — as he received $20,000 from Koch Industries — Upton has shifted to oppose not only cap-and-trade legislation but any form of limits on climate pollution whatsoever, instead supporting investigations against climate scientists and lawsuits against the EPA and its supposed "unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs":

April 2009: Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions.

June 2009: We have a unique opportunity and a responsibility to reduce emissions and preserve our economy – the American public is desperate for solutions, but a national energy tax is not the answer.

December 2009: I think we can lower our emissions. I think the world will be better off if we did that, and we can do it without cap and trade.

January 2010: No matter what we did between now and 2050, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that's why we do need hearings.

December 2010: Moreover, the principal argument for a two-year delay is that it will allow Congress time to create its own plan for regulating carbon. This presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced.

"We think the American consumer would prefer not to be skinned by Obama's EPA," Upton and Phillips wrote in the Wall Street Journal, invoking the grisly image of the president murdering his fellow citizens. The world would be better off if Upton went back to believing instead in serious solutions to serious problems.

1 Out Of 3 Americans Has Zero Dollars In A Retirement Account

here http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-retirement-account-fantasy-and-middle-class-erosion-%E2%80%93-1-out-3-americans-has-zero-

Allstate Sues Countrywide Over $700 Million Investment

from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/allstate-sues-countrywide-financial-over-purchase-of-700-million-in-cdos.html

Allstate Corp. sued Bank of America Corp. and its Countrywide mortgage unit over $700 million in residential mortgage-backed securities the insurer purchased, claiming Countrywide misrepresented the investments.

"The defendants knew the loans offloaded onto Allstate were a toxic mix of loans given to borrowers that could not afford the properties, and thus were highly likely to default," Allstate said in a complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan yesterday.

Allstate, based in Northbrook, Illinois, said in the complaint that the mortgage-backed securities, purchased from March 2005 to June 2007, suffered "drastic and rapid loss in value" when large numbers of homeowners began to default on their mortgages.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violation of U.S. securities laws. In addition to Bank of America and Countrywide, Allstate names as defendants former Countrywide officials including former chairman and chief executive officer, Angelo Mozilo.

"We are still reviewing the complaint, but this unfortunately appears to be a situation where a sophisticated investor is looking for someone to blame for a downturn in the economy and losses on an investment it made," Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, said in a statement.

Outstanding Claims

Bank of America and Countrywide have been sued by the purchasers of more than $375 billion of securities, Bank of America said in a Nov. 5 regulatory filing. The bank acquired Countrywide Financial Corp. for $4.2 billion in July 2008.

Allstate, the biggest publicly-traded U.S. home and auto insurer, returned to profit last year after investment declines pushed the company into a $1.7 billion loss in 2008. The insurer, led by Chief Executive Officer Thomas Wilson, had about $102 billion of investments at the end of the third quarter.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., a Boston-based competitor of Allstate's, is also seeking damages in lawsuits over mortgage- related investments that soured during the financial crisis. In July, Liberty Mutual sued Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in federal court, accusing the brokerage of misleading investors in 2007 when it sold preferred stock in Fannie Mae, the government- sponsored source of home-loan financing.

'Mixing and Matching'

In its complaint, Allstate claimed that Countrywide began ignoring its own underwriting standards in 2003 in an effort to increase its share of the home mortgage market. The company adopted an internal strategy to match any mortgage product feature offered by a competitor, Allstate said.

"By mixing and matching the worst features of mortgage products from different competitors, Countrywide's composite product offering became very aggressive within the industry," Allstate said.

Countrywide misled investors about its underwriting guidelines, the rate at which mortgaged properties were owner- occupied, the value of the mortgaged homes and the widespread use of exceptions to the underwriting process to circumvent guidelines, Allstate said in the complaint.

The case is Allstate Insurance Co. v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 10-cv-9591, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.

China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says

here http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

McCain whines that Latinos turned their backs on him -- after he threw them under the bus #p2 @gop #tcot

from http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccain-whines-latinos-turned-their-b

Click here to view this media

We all saw what a vicious hypocrite John McCain really is last week when he voted against the DREAM Act -- a bill he not only sponsored, but campaigned before Latinos on.

Now he's justifying his mendacious flip-flop by complaining that Latinos turned their backs on him:

McCain also voted no Saturday on the Dream Act, which would have granted citizenship to thousands of foreign-born college students. He initially sponsored the legislation. Gullett said McCain constantly faced voters on the campaign trail last year asking about border security and that affected his stance. His communications director, Brooke Buchanan, explained that on immigration, McCain believes the border needs to be secured above all else, citing the increasing border violence over the last four years. "His opinion has evolved with time," she said. "Don't we expect our leaders to base their opinions and policies, don't we expect them to change with the time? And that's what Sen. McCain has been doing. It's truly in the best interest of our country."

Woods said "it hurts" McCain to vote against legislation like the Dream Act after years of working on reform but said the senator felt betrayed when Latinos overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. "When you carry that fight at great sacrifice year after year and then you are abandoned during the biggest fight of your life, it has to have some sort of effect on you," he said.

But as Kos observes, McCain actually threw Latinos under the bus in January 2008, during the Republican presidential debates:

MS. HOOK: Senator McCain, let me just take the issue to you, because you obviously have been very involved in it. During this campaign, you, like your rivals, have been putting the first priority, heaviest emphasis, on border security. But your original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here.

What I'm wondering is, and you seem to be downplaying that part, at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

SEN. MCCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate.

MS. HOOK: I know, but what if it did?

SEN. MCCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever, that proposal.

He also backed the bus back up and ran over Latinos again in May, on Bill O'Reilly's show:

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

[crosstalk]

O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.

A few months later, McCain held a secret meeting with Latinos in which he told Latinos, again, that he really was their friend -- but just didn't want them to tell anyone about it.

Yeah, Latinos betrayed McCain. Like Jesus betrayed Judas.

Right-Wing Groups Abandon Conservative Forum For Inviting Gay Conservatives To Participate #p2 @gop #tcot

here http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/28/right-wing-groups-abandon-conservative-forum-for-inviting-gay-conservative-group-to-participate/

thanks U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican - NASA's Ares rocket dead, but Congress lets you pay $500 million more for it #p2 @gop #tcot

here http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-ares-rocket-constellation-20101227,0,2096166.story

GAO Sees Problems in Government’s Financial Management

from http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/GAO-Sees-Problems-Government-Financial-Management-56749-1.html

The U.S. Government Accountability Office said it could not render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations.  

Gene Dodaro

---

---

"Even though significant progress has been made since the enactment of key financial management reforms in the 1990s, our report on the U.S. government's consolidated financial statement illustrates that much work remains to be done to improve federal financial management," Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro said in a statement. "Shortcomings in three areas again prevented us from expressing an opinion on the accrual-based financial statements."

The main obstacles to a GAO opinion were: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable, (2) the federal government's inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government's ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.

Advertisement

<SCRIPT language="JavaScript1.1" SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/webcpa.com;sz=300x250;pg=ROS;pos=article;tile=12;ord=14714896?"> </SCRIPT>

In addition, the GAO said last week it was unable to render an opinion on the 2010 Statement of Social Insurance because of significant uncertainties, primarily related to the achievement of projected reductions in Medicare cost growth. The consolidated financial statements discuss these uncertainties, which relate to reductions in physician payment rates and to productivity improvements, and provide an illustrative alternative projection to illustrate the uncertainties.

Dodaro also cited material weaknesses involving an estimated $125.4 billion in improper payments, information security across government, and tax collection activities. He noted that three major agencies — the DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Labor — did not get clean opinions. Nineteen of 24 major agencies did get clean opinions on all their statements.

"Given the federal government's fiscal challenges, it's imperative that Congress, the administration, and federal managers have reliable, useful, and timely financial and performance information," Dodaro said. "Improved accuracy and transparency in financial reporting are urgently needed."

Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies and, Along With it, Reason and Justice #p2 @gop #tcot

While much condemnation has rightly been expressed toward Arizona's anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, a less-reported and potentially more sinister measure is set to take effect on January 1, 2011. This new law, which was passed by the conservative state legislature at the behest of then-School Superintendent (and now Attorney General-elect) Tom Horne, is designated HB 2281 and is colloquially referred to as a measure to ban ethnic studies programs in the state. As with SB 1070, the implications of this law are problematic, wide-ranging and decidedly hate filled.

Whereas SB 1070 focused primarily on the ostensible control of bodies, HB 2281 is predominantly about controlling minds. In this sense, it is the software counterpart of Arizona's race-based politicking, paired with the hardware embodied in SB 1070's "show us your papers" logic of "attrition through enforcement," which has already resulted in tens of thousands of people leaving the state. With HB 2281, the intention is not so much to expel or harass as it is to inculcate a deep-seated, second-class status by denying people the right to explore their own histories and cultures. It is, in effect, about the eradication of ethnic identity among young people in the state's already-floundering school system, which now ranks near the bottom in the nation.

There's a word for what Arizona is attempting to do here: ethnocide. It is similar to genocide in its scope, but it reflects the notion that it is an ethnic and/or cultural identity under assault more so than physical bodies themselves. By imposing a curriculum that forbids the exploration of divergent cultures while propping up the dominant one, there's another process at work here, what we might call ethnonormativity. This takes the teachings of one culture - the colonizer's - and makes it the standard version of history while literally banning other accounts, turning the master narrative into the "normal" one, and further denigrating marginalized perspectives. America's racialized past abounds with such examples of oppressed people being denied their languages, histories and cultures, including through enforced indoctrination in school systems.

rest at http://www.truth-out.org/arizona-bans-ethnic-studies-and-along-with-it-reason-and-justice66340

repub Sen. Shelby’s Pork Lust Forces NASA To Spend $500 Million On Canceled Rocket Program #p2 @gop #tcot

from http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/28/shelby-nasa-pork/

Thanks to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), taxpayers are footing a $500 million bill for a NASA rocket that the agency has no plans or desire to continue developing. The Orlando Sentinel reports that pork legislation inserted into a spending bill by Shelby earlier this year is requiring NASA to spend millions on the canceled Ares I rocket program through March, even while the agency can't find funds to begin a much-needed modernization of the famed Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida:

At the root of the problem is a 70-word sentence inserted into the 2010 budget — by lawmakers seeking to protect Ares I jobs in their home states — that bars NASA from shutting down the program until Congress passed a new budget a year later. [...]

But Congress never passed a 2011 budget and instead voted this month to extend the 2010 budget until March — so NASA still must abide by the 2010 language.[...]

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

His office confirmed that the language was still in effect but did not respond to e-mails seeking details.

Nearly all of the money for the program will go to two defense contractors building the Ares rocket, Alliant Techsystems (ATK) and Lockheed Martin, with ATK receiving the bulk. Defense contractors have been a consistent source of financial support for Shelby's campaigns, contributing to him at higher rates than to other politicians in his state. In particular, Shelby's 2010 reelection campaign was the top recipient of funds from ATK's PAC, receiving the maximum $10,000. And the company's employees appear to have given more to Shelby than to any other politician in the 2010 election cycle.

Shelby certainly has a flair for the dramatic when it comes to extracting pork money for defense contractors in his state. In a "nearly unprecedented" move in February, Shelby placed a blanket hold on every single presidential nominees being considered by the Senate — more than 70 in total, including "top Intelligence officers at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security as well as the number three civilian at the Pentagon" — in order to pressure to Obama administration to do the bidding of Northrop Grumman on a $40 billion contract for which they were being considered.

Do You Have a HSA? Next Year to Spend Money for Most Over the Counter Drugs You Will Need a Prescription Or Pay Out of Pocket

here http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2010/12/do-you-have-health-savings-account-next.html

Class warfare looms in 2011 #p2 #tcot

from http://peoplesworld.org/class-warfare-looms-in-201/

2010 is ending with praise of President Obama's first two years in office for producing more progressive reform than any chief executive since President Lyndon Johnson. Cited is his passage of sweeping health care reform, financial reform, a $787 billion first economic stimulus that saved or created 3 million jobs, placing two women on the U.S. Supreme Court including Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina justice, and many other accomplishments.

In the waning hours of the 111th Congress, the Senate ratified the START treaty 71-26 and repealed the Pentagon's "Don't ask, don't tell" discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military. 

Also approved was a bill strengthening food safety, a multi-billion-dollar settlement of discrimination lawsuits by Black farmers and Native American Indians, and a health care bill for 9/11 first responders long blocked by the heartless Republicans.

Over GOP opposition, the Democrats pushed through a 13-month extension of jobless benefits and tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers. As the price for winning Republican agreement to the $858 billion deal, Obama accepted a $700 billion tax gift for the rich which he long opposed, and a cut in the estate tax plus a 2 percent cut in Social Security withholding. Critics charge that Obama gave up too much. Yet without the deal real people's lives were on the line, if unemployment benefits were allowed to run out or workers were left with a cut in their take-home pay.

The weaknesses in all the reforms reflect the balance of forces in the House and Senate and in the nation as a whole. The Republicans were determined to block or gut any progressive reform and the Democrats lacked the votes to break their obstructionist tactics. That obstructionist strategy paid handsome dividends in the Nov. 2 election. When the ballots were counted, the Republicans with much help from the tea party, Fox News, and the billionaire Koch brothers had captured majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives, picked up six Senate seats and won a majority of the gubernatorial races.

It offers a chilling harbinger of the class warfare the emboldened Republican right will wage against the people when the new Congress convenes in January. Their first priority is outright repeal of health care reform. The same for the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Kill it by denying funds to enforce the law.

The GOP leadership vows to slash $100 billion in health, education, environmental protection and other vital human needs funding. Their agenda includes repeal or privatization of Social  Security, Medicare, our system of public education and higher education. They even call for elimination of the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

We have no choice but to stand and fight back against this vicious plan.

We must work to reinvigorate the majority coalition that elected Obama in the first place. The October 2 "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington was a first step. A second big step could be nationwide celebrations of Dr. Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 17. With one loud voice on that day we should demand jobs for the unemployed. No cuts in lifeline programs like food stamps and Medicaid.  Stop the GOP drive to repeal health care reform! Defend our Social Security, Medicare, public education. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; use the trillion in savings to fund human needs programs.

Above all, make 2011 a year to organize and unite, bigger and broader.

Disease in drag as diagnosis: The conservative attack on sound public finance. @andrewbreitbart #p2 #tcot

here http://www.openleft.com/diary/21253/disease-in-drag-as-diagnosis-the-conservative-attack-on-sound-public-finance

In an excerpt from his Sept 27 "Government Deficits and Debts Lecture", Brad DeLong lays out his "Five Rules for Public Finance," and a conservative critique that he gives too much credit to.  Why is that?  Because the conservative critique is less an objective observation of how governments in the welfare state era  had acted up to that point than a prospective justification for the conservative looting that was to come. First, here's DeLong's rules (with some shorting that cuts out some interesting, but not essential details in #4 and #5): Five Rules for Public Finance: And so now we have arrived at five rules for public finance: (1) The government must do whatever is necessary in order to make sure that people have confidence it will pay back its debts. (2) You really ought to have budget balance over the business cycle. It is fine to run cyclical deficits in times of high unemployment, but you really should balance them with surpluses when the economy is in a boom. (3) That implies Milton Friedman's Pay-as-You-Go principle that he set out in his late 1940s framework for fiscal and monetary stability: whenever the government takes on a mission to do some long term spending program, it also needs to match that by imposing some tax large enough to fund the spending. Changes in government spending plans over time should be accompanied by changes in taxes so that when politicians make decisions and when voters evaluate politicians there is no gaming the system. (4) You need to keep plenty of headroom in your debt capacity in normal times. In normal times you should aim to keep your debt-to-GDP ratio fairly low. There will come emergencies and opportunities during which you will want to increase your debt-to-GDP ratio. Remember 1803: Thomas Jefferson was president and Napoleon I was about to become Emperor and was willing to sell French "rights" to the entire Louisiana territory. The United States had plenty of debt capacity and could easily afford to borrow--and Jefferson did. Thus we have a United States that doesn't end at the Mississippi river but instead continues all the way on from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast. The War of 1812, Civil War, World War I, World War II--in all of them we were very grateful that we started with a low national debt-to-GDP ratio. The government wanted to fight these wars for reasons that it thought were sufficient. It was able to borrow in order to build the armies and navies and air forces to fight them, It could not have done that if the debt to GDP ratio was really high. The Great Depression and the current Great Recession--we want to respond to them by deficit spending as well.... (5) But that does not mean that countries should not borrow except in emergencies. It is perfectly okay for a government to borrow and run up its debt when it is undertaking projects that are going to primarily benefit future generations.Taxing the citizens of the East Bay and San Francisco right now to pay for the entire reconstruction of the Bay Bridge seems unfair--the new Bay Bridge will still be there and be earthquake-safe 50 years from now. People who are going to move into the San Francisco area 40 years from now will benefit from the bridge. They should pay some part of the cost. Thus you should finance infrastructure projects that build up productive capacity through borrowing and debt. You should also finance current spending through borrowing and debt if you think the future is going to be a lot richer than the present.... So here we have our five rules for public finance. And now here's the conservative critique:

Paul Rosenberg :: Disease in drag as diagnosis: The conservative attack on sound public finance.

A Right-Wing Conclusion: I want to close this lecture by making a right wing argument that these five rules are inconsistent and we have to drop one of them. This right-wing argument is one that back when I was your age I pooh-poohed as nonsensical and simply silly. But it is 30 years later. I at least feel a little bit wiser. It's not that I believe this right-wing argument completely. But it has much more force with me than it did 30 years ago. The argument comes from Nobel Prize-winning James Buchanan. He pointed out two generations ago that he didn't think that these rules were politically sustainable. If you try to enunciate the principal that cyclical deficits in downturns are good and permanent structural deficits are bad--that is just too complicated for the political system to process. If you tolerate and approve of cyclical deficits to fight downturns, Jim Buchanan argued, then you're setting the political stage for permanent structural deficits because politicians will be eager to grab the argument that the deficits that they want to run are actually good for the economy. Allow cyclical deficits, and you make permanent large structural deficits likely. They will slow growth by crowding out investment. They might eventually lead to an erosion of confidence in the government's ability to pay back its promises--and so lead you down the road to Mad Max. Actually, the structural deficit/structural deficit is not inherently too difficult for the political system to process.  This was not an objective assessment of historical reality, but a strategic assessment of political vulnerability, and one that Ronald Reagan proceeded to begin exploiting to the hilt in order to destroy the welfare state, and thus return the majority of the citizenry to a state of permanent want, which conservatives have always thought to be the morally proper order of things.   After the 30 years of deliberate Republican fiscal irresponsibility, running huge deficits due to massive reductions in progressive taxation at the national level (while state and local taxes remained hugely regressive, and regressive payroll taxes were also significantly increased), they are positioned to move their long-term attack on the welfare state into its next phase. But it was never the political system in and of itself that couldn't tell the difference between structural and cyclical deficits.  That was never the real story of what was going on.  It was just the conservative cover story--nothing more. Misleading the public on fiscal policy--among many other things--was always a key aspect of conservative strategy.  The problem wasn't the system, but conservative's ability to game the system. And the solution wasn't to give up on sound fiscal thinking, but to strengthen the truth-orientation (aka "reality-based orientation") of the political system. This is, in short, just another chapter in the age-old dispute between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives--living on Kegan's Level 3--say that we're doomed because of the nature of the cosmos and ourselves. Liberals--living on Kegan's Level 4--say, "Wait a minute. There's an app for that."  And if not, Radicals--living on Kegan's Level 5--will come along and invent one.

Maine's Incoming Teabagger Gov Gives Own Daughter A $41K Job #p2 #tcot @gop #teaparty

here http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/maines-incoming-teabagger-gov-gives-o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8MR3Rd_bic

It's a golden era in government! No more wasteful spending or cronyism! It's a brave new day, where integrity rules every single thing the new Tea Party politicians do: By the way, this same daughter, Lauren LePage, went to school in Florida, where she paid in-state tuition --because LePage's wife violated tax laws by claiming residency in both Maine and Florida. (She was eventually ordered to pay back taxes).

In other words, business as usual. Teabaggers, you were suckered:

With the strong backing of the tea party movement, Maine Gov.-elect Paul LePage (R) rode a wave of discontent overbull semen taxes to a surprising victory last month, telling President Obama to "go to to hell" and warning a reporter that he would punch him in the face. On the campaign trail, LePage raged against a what he considered a corrupt state government and "pledged to surround himself with 'the best and the brightest' and to avoid political cronyism."

But on Thursday, LePage announced that he had hired his own 22-year-old daughter for a position in the "upper echelon of his administration," with a salary of $41,000, the Bangor Daily News reports:

Lauren LePage, 22, will serve as assistant to the governor's chief of staff, John McGough — a position that administration officials describe as entry-level and is commensurate with her experience, work history and education.

LePage, a recent college graduate, will be a salaried political appointee earning approximately $41,000 a year, according to Dan Demeritt, incoming director of communications in the LePage administration. [...]

Maine governors have wide discretion in creating staff positions within their offices, filling those positions and setting salaries. Because such appointments are political positions — known as "special assistants to the governor" — there are no rules barring Maine's chief executive from hiring family members.

According to the current administration, the average entry level salary is $30,000." Indeed, the minimum starting salary for a certified teachers in Maine is only $30,000, and that requires extra study. Meanwhile, the entry-level salary for a Maine StatePolice officer is just $36,000 after graduation from the police academy.

And as Maine progressive blog Dirigo Blue points out, LePage's daughter will also bemoving into the governor's mansion with her father. With taxpayers footing the bill for her rent, utilities, food, and other expenses, "Not only will Lauren be earning $41,000 in direct income, but she'll be making another $12,000 or more indirectly."

Maine Democrats Executive Director Mary Erin Casale called the hiring a "brazen display of political nepotism," but LePage aides said the position is "entry-level and iscommensurate with her experience, work history and education."

Not Much to Celebrate with Obama's Tax Deal #p2

We enter 2011 with a few more dollars in our paychecks. For about 98 percent of Americans, the extension of Bush tax cuts and the new payroll tax holiday will make it easier for us to afford a gallon, rather than a quart, of milk for our families each month, and to fill our tanks almost as high as we did with lower gas prices last year.

(We ought to be consuming less gas and driving electric cars, but I'll leave that for another commentary). On the other side of the Great Divide: the richest two percent of Americans will get vast windfalls from the deal Obama made with the GOP--ample enough to refurnish second and third homes, or get those boats they've always needed.

But studies show us that they won't. They'll sock that money away for the kids' inheritance. We'll get no stimulative boost to the economy, but it sure will help some dynasties from dying. To give the rest of us some lunch money, House and Senate Republicans insisted this Christmas season on stuffing huge lumps of gold into Paris Hilton's velvet stockings. That's what happened when they extended tax cuts for the highest-income Americans and lowered the estate tax, which only gets levied on the wealthiest of the wealthy.

The rich keep getting richer. And richer. But, there is some stimulus in this deal, and it's better than no deal at all. And hey...didn't we all get a boost from the "payroll tax holiday?" We didn't have that before! A holiday after Christmas, for a whole year! Hallelujah, Auld Lang Syne, and Happy Valentine's Day!

Let's hold the confetti for a minute and take a closer look. Just because the deal was better than no deal, that doesn't mean it was a good one, even given this difficult political climate.

In addition to non-stimulative and expensive tax cuts and estate tax favors for the wealthy, this package has another poison pill in it. In the 2009 Recovery Act, the Making Work Pay provision gave those of us making less than $95,000 annually ($190,000 for couples) a refundable tax credit. Income above that level didn't see a tax credit. It was progressive. Those most likely to use the money, stimulating the economy, received the money.

The new tax deal replaces this Making Work Pay credit with the Payroll Tax Holiday.

rest at http://www.truth-out.org/karen-dolan-not-much-celebrate-with-obamas-tax-deal66332