Sort Articles by:

<a href="http://www.sodahead.com/living/what-do-you-prefer-as-a-tax-structure-for-funding-the-united-states/question-2318435/" title="What do you prefer as a tax structure for funding the United States?">What do you prefer as a tax structure for funding the United States?</a>

Follow Us on Twitter!

The Ohio Project

Register to Vote - Click Here

Private Citizen Buy Airtime to do the Job the Media Refuses to do

Billionaire Thomas Peterffy is spending his own money to explain why he is voting the way he is. His story is compelling as he has lived it and is worried that the America he came to in 1956 may not exist with the opportunities he had if the election goes a certain way. Watch the video and then ask yourself why a man would spend between $ 5 million and $10 million of his own money on airing this video.

I think the answer is clear. A man who has seen and lived through a socialistic political system  and became successful here in the United States doesn’t want to see the country that has given him the opportunity for success go back to what he escaped.

What is this election all about? Left & Right? Or something else?

Google vs Evil in voting this electionI’ve had the chance the past few days to really sit and think about the election that happens November 2nd here in Ohio. What are we voting on in our local, state and federal races?

Many would say that it is an ideological struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats. Others would say it is the struggle for our national identity and what this nation was founded and built upon. Others say it is the pivotal point in our great nation’s history and we could slide down the slope into oblivion as the world’s greatest nation (past tense) or a renewing of that greatness.

I propose that it might be something greater than all of these.

It is a fight between Good and Evil.

Continue reading What is this election all about? Left & Right? Or something else?

Canton Ohio McDonalds Tells Employees How to Vote if They Want Raises

McDonalds and VotingBy JULIE CARR SMYTH, Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A handful of McDonald’s employees in northeastern Ohio received handbills in their most recent paychecks suggesting they vote for three Republican candidates.

“If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels,” the insert said. “If others are elected we will not.”

The fast food chain’s corporate headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill., quickly condemned the action by Canton franchisee Paul Siegfried, saying it violated company policy. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, the Democratic elections chief, said she was launching an investigation because the action appeared to violate Ohio election laws.

Allen Schulman, an attorney representing one of the employees, said Friday he had forwarded the paycheck insert to Canton’s city law director, citing state and federal laws against corporate advocacy in elections. Continue reading Canton Ohio McDonalds Tells Employees How to Vote if They Want Raises

Early Voting in Ohio and the Country Underway

By NANCY BENAC and LIZ SIDOTI – MyWay

While it’s impossible to tell for whom people are voting, Democrats so far are casting ballots at a faster clip than Republicans in Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina and Nevada’s heavily Democratic Clark County, which supplied two-thirds of the state’s voters in 2008.

Republicans are flexing their organizational muscles and leading the pace in Florida, even though Democrats have the edge in registered voters there, and in Colorado. The parties are running about even so far in Maine.

Ohio’s early voting trends reflect the state’s swing-voting status: Democrats are ahead in the party stronghold of Cuyahoga County around Cleveland, while Republicans lead in GOP territory of Hamilton County, which is home to Cincinnati. Ballots are virtually even in Franklin County, which anchors fickle central Ohio.

Read More…

Do Republicans support policies that outsource American jobs?

The Democrat’s strategy could work. According to an NBC/WSJ poll recently released, 69 percent of Americans believe free trade agreements, like NAFTA, cost Americans jobs and 53 percent believe they have hurt the U.S. economy.

In an ABC News article titled: Dems Use ‘Outsourcing’ Ads to Attack Republicans on Jobs, they state;

“As November 2nd creeps closer, more and more Democratic are using these ads to take advantage of this anti-free-trade feeling. In just the past week, at least five Senate and 11 House candidates have come out with ads accusing GOP candidates of supporting tax breaks for multi-national corporations and free trade agreements –like NAFTA, which was signed by former Republican president George H. W. Bush and the China Trade Agreement, which was signed by former Democratic president Bill Clinton– that they say have been sending jobs abroad.”

This intentional distortion of information by not only political parties but also by main stream news sources raises the question of how far will a group go to keep or gain power? Who should the public elect? And why the dissemination of misleading information?

Lets look at NAFTA and what it means for Americans and job creation.

In Executive Memorandum #366 published by The Heritage Foundation Published on September 27, 1993 by Douglas Seay, we read:

“After years of negotiation and repeated postponements, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been completed and now awaits congressional consideration. As if on cue, a torrent of opposition has erupted.

The most surprising aspect about the NAFTA debate is the criticism by some conservatives. Opposition to the NAFTA is understandable on the part of protectionists, champions of increased government regulation, and those who unashamedly seek to advance their own fortunes at the expense of the national interest. But for conservatives, there should be little dissension. All the existing empirical data regarding U.S. trade with Mexico, as well as basic economic theory stretching back over 200 years to Adam Smith, shows that the NAFTA is good for the U.S. This is why Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Milton Friedman, to name only some of the most prominent conservatives, strongly support the agreement, even with its admitted flaws. As Thatcher told a U.S. audience recently, America has “nothing to fear” from the NAFTA.”

So why the fear now if under then Democratic President Bill Clinton NAFTA was so rosey?

Article 102 of the NAFTA agreement outlines its purpose:
  • Grant the signatories Most Favored Nation status.
  • Eliminate barriers to trade and facilitate the cross-border movement of goods and services.
  • Promote conditions of fair competition.
  • Increase investment opportunities.
  • Provide protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
  • Create procedures for the resolution of trade disputes.
  • Establish a framework for further trilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation to expand NAFTA’s benefits.

(Source: NAFTA Secretariat, “NAFTA FAQ”)

Has NAFTA Fulfilled Its Purpose?:

NAFTA has eliminated trade barriers, increased investment opportunities, and established procedures for resolution of trade disputes. Most important, it has increased the competitiveness of the three countries involved on the global marketplace. This has become especially important with the launch of the European Union. In 2007, the EU replaced the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. (Article updated December 21)      <source is found here>

According to John Engler.

A critical fact overlooked by politicians who blame lost jobs on NAFTA is that during those three years Ohio manufacturers actually sold more goods to Canada and Mexico — our NAFTA partners — than it took in. If Ohio exported more to these countries than it imported — shrinking the trade deficit — how can these politicians argue this agreement cost us jobs?

In fact, while one in five manufacturing jobs in Ohio depends on making products that are sold overseas, exports to NAFTA countries increased more than 31 percent in the past five years.

What some candidates are not admitting to Ohioans is that the decline in manufacturing jobs was largely the result of the state’s early-decade recession, when the nation’s entire economy slowed. An even greater factor is increased productivity: Manufacturers can simply make more products today with fewer people. We could just as easily blame faster microprocessors, automated production lines and other technological advances for the decline in manufacturing jobs. Yet no candidate is demanding a timeout from computer chips.

Enacting the anti-trade policies expressed in recent campaign rhetoric equals more than just a timeout; it means surrendering the playing field to our competitors, costing us jobs.”

Most recently ther has been a paper written by Jackie Lopez, a Junior at Duke university majoring in Public Policy and minoring in Economics. It’s title: The Campaign Against NAFTA: An Irrational Attack on Free Trade

Jackie quotes President Clinton, “ This debate about NAFTA is a debate about whether we will embrace change and create the jobs of tomorrow, or try to resist those changes, hoping we can preserve the economic structure of yesterday” – President Bill Clinton

In Ms Lopez’s abstract she writes. “Models and basic rationality show NAFTA offered America enormous benefits that only free trade can bring.

It is pointed out in her analysis that when you introduce competition productivity actually goes up. With increased efficiency and output profit and wages can increase.

Further in her findings she states. “Trade policy alone does not determine the net number of jobs. The total net jobs in the economy depends on much bigger factors such as the business cycle, number of workers and labor market policies. The most important effect of trade remains the creation of more productive employment that in turn raises the standard of living and prosperity of workers.
Acording to a recent LimaOhio.com article titled  Labor leaders say factories still feel NAFTA’s sting, Joe Vardon reports, “More than 15 years after the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect under President Bill Clinton, labor leaders and politicians are still bemoaning the negative effects they said it’s had on manufacturing.”
..nearing two years into his presidency, President Obama has yet to rewrite the trade agreements he campaigned against as being harmful to American manufacturers and that he promised to overhaul. “It took us 30 years to get into this mess,” said Tim Burga, chief of staff for the Ohio AFL-CIO. “This is some hard stuff to reverse all of a sudden.”

So is it about NAFTA or maintaining power ? NAFTA has not been good for any of the nations represented by it despite the economic problems. Blame will not fix job losses so who will cooperate to fix this mess?

Choose wisely this November 2nd.

Both national party committees spend big chunks on fancy meals, hotels, travel

Wine and Dine with the Republicans and Democrats at your expenseBy R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer

Both the national Democratic and Republican party committees spend about two-thirds of the money they take in on the care and comfort of committee staffs and on efforts to raise more funds, with lavish spending on limousines, expensive hotels, meals and tips, an analysis of the latest financial disclosure data shows.

Monthly committee spending reports, like those that were due by midnight Tuesday, illustrate cultures in which vast sums are consumed with limited accountability, a Washington Post review has found. Neither committee appears to have clear internal spending guidelines, and their reports do not explain hefty expenditures in categories such as “office supplies” and “tips” that consume tax-exempt party funds.

The two parties assert that to raise money, they must spend it, and both have long used donated funds to court and pamper prospective donors with luxurious getaways and gifts.

The nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, in an analysis done at the request of The Post, calculated, however, that administrative and fundraising expenses consumed about $60 million of Democratic revenue in this cycle through the end of February, or 59 percent of total revenue that exceeded $100 million. For Republicans, the amount exceeded $74 million, or 68 percent of $109 million in revenue.

Sheila Krumholz, the center’s executive director, said the controversy last month over the Republican National Committee’s expenditure of $1,946 for meals at a bondage-themed nightclub had convinced her that “there is inadequate budget oversight within the parties.” Her views are not isolated: Louisiana’s Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, joked at the party’s New Orleans leadership conference on April 9 that “I have a word of warning for RNC staffers: You may want to stay away from Bourbon Street. Just a word of advice.”

“There is a class of [political] donors who expect to be wined and dined and who expect to have gala receptions as part and parcel of giving a donation,” said Anthony J. Corrado, a Colby College professor specializing in campaign finance. But he said many current expenditures “are not the type that are going to translate into a large financial boon . . . such as spending on charter flights, limousines, entertainment, food and beverages at party headquarters.”

The two political committees are not typical nonprofit organizations, and such high spending for overhead is almost unheard of in the nonprofit world. A rule of thumb among nonprofits is that administrative and fundraising costs should consume no more than 20 to 25 percent of income.

Ken Berger, who runs Charity Navigator, a New Jersey group that monitors nonprofits across the country, said that “the most critical measure is effectiveness.” He said his advice for prospective donors to any nonprofit group that spends as much as 60 to 70 percent of revenue on overhead, including fundraising, would be to “run away.”

Spending reports at the Federal Election Commission offer vivid illustrations of luxurious tastes. When RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele and colleagues took several dozen party donors on a retreat last August to Jackson Hole, Wyo., for example, golf and tennis fees were paid, whitewater rafting and trout fishing guides were contracted, and limo drivers and photographers were hired. Flowers worth about $1,300 decorated tables filled with food from three caterers.

Including rooms at the Four Seasons Resort, which promotes itself as offering “pampered adventures,” the event appears to have soaked up more than $170,000 from party coffers, the data show.

The Democratic Party racked up a similar bill — $176,000 — to cover 14 months of catering at events at the Washington Hilton.

Last month, the RNC spent $260,476 on a single meeting in Hawaii and $14,937 on Dallas Cowboys football tickets, according to its report Tuesday. It also paid hefty cancellation fees to Ritz Carlton and Four Seasons hotels.

The RNC’s expenditures for “office supplies” in the period through February topped $773,000, according to a Post tally, including jelly beans for Steele’s office and thousands of dollars’ worth of liquor and wine. Although not asked to review specific party expenditures, Mindy Kramer, an Office Depot spokeswoman, said that in general, firms with 100 office workers — about the size of the RNC headquarters staff — spend $30,000 to $50,000 a year on supplies.

Doug Heye, the RNC spokesman, declined to reply to most questions about committee spending. Hari Sevugan, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, did not take issue with the Center for Responsive Politics’ calculations but said that “fundraising is a core function of a national party.”

Historically, the FEC has cared more about accounting accuracy than the appropriate use of funds. Unlike many private companies, neither committee appears to tightly enforce spending controls. Sevugan, for example, described his colleagues’ decision-making as elastic.

“There are occasions when a commercial flight is not available,” he said, explaining why DNC officials rent private planes. “We understand that it takes money to raise money or to operate a national political party, but we try to do so efficiently.”

Although the two parties’ monthly reports are supposed to delineate spending for items such as salaries, equipment, supplies, lodging, events, advertising, polling and political contributions, the explanations attached to many such items raise questions about accuracy.

To finance an RNC event last November in Beverly Hills, Calif., for example, the committee spent $717 on limousines, $11,076 at Spago restaurant and $4,583 at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. It also spent $4,266 at a Los Angeles sports ticket broker called StubHub, but listed the expense as “lodging,” and $923 at the Little Door restaurant, but listed that expense as “office supplies.”

In December, the RNC also reported spending $496 for “meals” at Henri Bendel, a posh New York women’s clothing store, a circumstance previously reported on AlterNet.org; Bendel’s personnel say the store’s restaurant closed four months earlier. The RNC also listed $282 in “meals” at a fly-fishing outfitter in Boca Grande, Fla., that has no restaurant. Wines the committee bought for $982 from a Vermont vineyard were listed as “office supplies,” as were smaller amounts spent at PetSmart and a men’s clothier.

Since January 2009, both the RNC and the DNC have spent donated funds at a local store called Tiny Jewel Box: The RNC said it paid $19,851 for “office supplies,” while the DNC said it paid $666 for “rental” costs. But store personnel said they were unaware of any DNC event hosted there , and Sevugan said the item was “miscoded on our FEC report as a rental. It was for thank-you gifts.”

Other reported expenditures lacked useful detail. RNC Deputy Finance Director Debbie LeHardy was paid $5,608 for “office supplies” on Oct. 8 and has been reimbursed $6,048 for “tips” since January 2009. Allison Meyers, fired by the RNC last month in connection with the nightclub outing, was reimbursed $1,917 for “tips” in the same period.

Benjamin Ginsberg, a former RNC counsel, said reporting such expenses “is not a perfect science” because the categories established by the FEC “are so broad and inherently imprecise.”

Heye, at the RNC, declined to name who had used chauffeured cars or limos costing more than $131,000 since January 2009, or who flew on private jets costing more than $184,000. Sevugan said the DNC, which spent nearly $35,000 at limousine and car service firms in the same period, needed them to reach the airport “at off hours,” to bus staff members to official events or to reach the office during snowstorms.

Patricia Maureen White, the DNC national finance chairwoman from 2001 to 2006, similarly said she considered hiring a car “to pick you up or take you someplace” a normal expenditure.

Both party committees spent lavishly for meals in destinations such as Miami Beach, Las Vegas, Hawaii and Boca Raton, Fla. Although the DNC charged many expenses to credit cards and did not detail them in FEC reports, the RNC’s reports state that staff ate occasionally at Arby’s or Cinnabon but also frequently ran up single tabs exceeding $500, including an $829 meal at Capitol City Brewing Company and a $4,020 meal at Bullfeathers.

The biggest total RNC tab at one venue appears to have been accrued at the Capitol Hill Club, a private Republican eatery in a building adjoining the committee’s headquarters. Donor funds financed $31,012 in meals at the club in the period. Heye said it would be incorrect to assume that “everything billed from the Capitol Hill Club to the RNC is for personal use.”

Research director Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.