.
. . . of the American Jewish World Service.
This is very apatow
and when you are done laughing, don't forget to do something about it!
*
and btw, here is a brief history of AJWS
*
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
New poll on Healthcare Reform
*
Never mind what you all thought the electorate said in the midterms, here is a report of a recent poll about what to do next for the nation's healthcare, from AOL's contributing editor, Bruce Drake.
Poll: Majority of Americans Say Health Care Law Should Stand or be Expanded
*
As usual, the politicians are having some difficulty doing what most US citizens want. Now that's a disconnect we should not let stand.
*
Never mind what you all thought the electorate said in the midterms, here is a report of a recent poll about what to do next for the nation's healthcare, from AOL's contributing editor, Bruce Drake.
Poll: Majority of Americans Say Health Care Law Should Stand or be Expanded
*
Marist's Lee Miringoff told McClatchy, "The political give-and-take is very different than public opinion. On health care, there is a wide gap between public opinion and the political community."
As usual, the politicians are having some difficulty doing what most US citizens want. Now that's a disconnect we should not let stand.
*
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Post-election Polical Highlights
*
So, you know how it goes, politicians are "all the same . . . "
Let's see how that pans out in a report on earmarks.
Here is an article, "Banning earmarks symbolic" from the Post and Courier by Alan Fram of the Associated Press. (You can see the original by clicking on the author's name here.)
But I will render the full article word-for-word below with the following highlights:
Red will be used to designate Republican-linked actions (e.g. in 2006, they held congress and the White House, so they were in control of earmarks)
Blue will be for the Dem-linked actions.
And Green will be factual, neutral, and fair and balanced! (Really! No kidding.)
Here we go . . .
_______________
Banning earmarks symbolic
Lawmakers can use other avenues for pet projects
BY ALAN FRAM, Associated Press
Saturday, November 20, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Despite their claims, the Republicans' ban on earmarks won't stop lawmakers from steering taxpayers' dollars to pet projects. And it will have little if any effect on Washington's far graver problem -- the gigantic budget deficit.
Saying Election Day victories gave them a mandate to curb spending, Republicans formally agreed last week to a two-year prohibition of earmarks, legislative provisions that funnel money to lawmakers' favorite projects. President Barack Obama has said he too wants to restrict earmarks, though he defended some as helping communities.
"I am proud that House and Senate Republicans have united to end the earmark favor factory," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a leader in the drive to stop the practice.
While the ban will make it harder for lawmakers to bring pork-barrel spending back home, it is far from airtight. Savvy members of Congress have options such as "phone-marking," picking up the telephone and pressuring agency officials to spend money on specific projects. Lawmakers are sure to exploit uncertainty over exactly how the ban will be applied, such as whether it will bar money for projects already in the works. And Democrats, who still will run the Senate next year, have not agreed to the restrictions. Neither have some Republicans.
"There's no way you can stamp out every effort" by lawmakers to bring home the bacon, said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., another leading earmark foe. "But you can marginalize it."
Even eliminating earmarks hardly would ensure that spending decisions will be objective and divorced from politics. Presidents and agency officials control where many federal dollars go, and always have used that power to reward allies. And formulas that automatically disburse other funds to states are themselves products of past political compromises with their own sets of winners and losers.
"It makes those who ranted and raved against earmarks feel good," Robert Reischauer, the Urban Institute president and former chief of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said of the GOP ban. "But it is largely cosmetic."
Spending for earmarks peaked in 2006, when lawmakers diverted $29 billion to hometown projects, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. The numbers dipped to about $16 billion last year for 9,000 earmarks, thanks to public pressure and the infamy of influence-seekers such as convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
That $16 billion* is undeniably real money, but it amounts to just half of 1 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Lawmakers carve most earmarks from within agency budgets, so eliminating them would not save money but simply mean it would be spent on something else.
Even if the ban somehow did save $16 billion, it would not make a noticeable dent in the federal deficit, which hit a near record $1.3 trillion last year and threatens to remain huge. The shortfalls are being chiefly driven by growing, automatically paid benefit programs such as Medicare**, a problem that lawmakers have yet to seriously tackle.
Bob Livingston, a lobbyist and former GOP congressman from Louisiana who doled out many earmarks as chairman of one of Congress' spending committees, said he thinks the ban will reduce earmarks but have no real budgetary impact.
"It's a symbol, and my friends and former colleagues have chosen to bow to a symbol," he said.
Critics of earmarks say they generally go to senior lawmakers, divert funds from worthier projects and are doled out by leaders in exchange for votes on other bills that drive up spending even further. They are a favorite target of conservatives such as tea party supporters, and the GOP's effort to eliminate them is a way to please those voters and signal that the party will rein in a bloated government.***
"This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington," Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, in line to be House speaker next year, said Thursday.
Yet earmarks remain popular with many lawmakers who consider it part of their jobs to win money for deserving projects back home and view the projects as a way to please voters.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was just re-elected over a tea party rival in a campaign where she championed earmarks. She opposes the ban and said Tuesday she "will always fight hard to ensure that Alaska receives its fair share."
James Walsh, a former GOP congressman from upstate New York and now a lobbyist, said two earmarks he won for his district became important in Iraq for electronically jamming hidden bombs and locating the source of incoming fire.
My footnotes:
* and $29 billion is just under 1 %
** Medicare - originally passed when Dems controlled Congress and the White House under LBJ, while the younger George Bush pushed through unfunded Medicare prescription benefits, adding hugely to the Deficit
*** The GOP are 0 for 2 on balancing the budget, so signaling is all they do on the issue. See Fareed Zakaria in Time
So, you know how it goes, politicians are "all the same . . . "
Let's see how that pans out in a report on earmarks.
Here is an article, "Banning earmarks symbolic" from the Post and Courier by Alan Fram of the Associated Press. (You can see the original by clicking on the author's name here.)
But I will render the full article word-for-word below with the following highlights:
Red will be used to designate Republican-linked actions (e.g. in 2006, they held congress and the White House, so they were in control of earmarks)
Blue will be for the Dem-linked actions.
And Green will be factual, neutral, and fair and balanced! (Really! No kidding.)
Here we go . . .
_______________
Banning earmarks symbolic
Lawmakers can use other avenues for pet projects
BY ALAN FRAM, Associated Press
Saturday, November 20, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Despite their claims, the Republicans' ban on earmarks won't stop lawmakers from steering taxpayers' dollars to pet projects. And it will have little if any effect on Washington's far graver problem -- the gigantic budget deficit.
Saying Election Day victories gave them a mandate to curb spending, Republicans formally agreed last week to a two-year prohibition of earmarks, legislative provisions that funnel money to lawmakers' favorite projects. President Barack Obama has said he too wants to restrict earmarks, though he defended some as helping communities.
"I am proud that House and Senate Republicans have united to end the earmark favor factory," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a leader in the drive to stop the practice.
While the ban will make it harder for lawmakers to bring pork-barrel spending back home, it is far from airtight. Savvy members of Congress have options such as "phone-marking," picking up the telephone and pressuring agency officials to spend money on specific projects. Lawmakers are sure to exploit uncertainty over exactly how the ban will be applied, such as whether it will bar money for projects already in the works. And Democrats, who still will run the Senate next year, have not agreed to the restrictions. Neither have some Republicans.
"There's no way you can stamp out every effort" by lawmakers to bring home the bacon, said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., another leading earmark foe. "But you can marginalize it."
Even eliminating earmarks hardly would ensure that spending decisions will be objective and divorced from politics. Presidents and agency officials control where many federal dollars go, and always have used that power to reward allies. And formulas that automatically disburse other funds to states are themselves products of past political compromises with their own sets of winners and losers.
"It makes those who ranted and raved against earmarks feel good," Robert Reischauer, the Urban Institute president and former chief of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said of the GOP ban. "But it is largely cosmetic."
Spending for earmarks peaked in 2006, when lawmakers diverted $29 billion to hometown projects, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. The numbers dipped to about $16 billion last year for 9,000 earmarks, thanks to public pressure and the infamy of influence-seekers such as convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
That $16 billion* is undeniably real money, but it amounts to just half of 1 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Lawmakers carve most earmarks from within agency budgets, so eliminating them would not save money but simply mean it would be spent on something else.
Even if the ban somehow did save $16 billion, it would not make a noticeable dent in the federal deficit, which hit a near record $1.3 trillion last year and threatens to remain huge. The shortfalls are being chiefly driven by growing, automatically paid benefit programs such as Medicare**, a problem that lawmakers have yet to seriously tackle.
Bob Livingston, a lobbyist and former GOP congressman from Louisiana who doled out many earmarks as chairman of one of Congress' spending committees, said he thinks the ban will reduce earmarks but have no real budgetary impact.
"It's a symbol, and my friends and former colleagues have chosen to bow to a symbol," he said.
Critics of earmarks say they generally go to senior lawmakers, divert funds from worthier projects and are doled out by leaders in exchange for votes on other bills that drive up spending even further. They are a favorite target of conservatives such as tea party supporters, and the GOP's effort to eliminate them is a way to please those voters and signal that the party will rein in a bloated government.***
"This earmark ban shows the American people we are listening and we are dead serious about ending business as usual in Washington," Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, in line to be House speaker next year, said Thursday.
Yet earmarks remain popular with many lawmakers who consider it part of their jobs to win money for deserving projects back home and view the projects as a way to please voters.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was just re-elected over a tea party rival in a campaign where she championed earmarks. She opposes the ban and said Tuesday she "will always fight hard to ensure that Alaska receives its fair share."
James Walsh, a former GOP congressman from upstate New York and now a lobbyist, said two earmarks he won for his district became important in Iraq for electronically jamming hidden bombs and locating the source of incoming fire.
My footnotes:
* and $29 billion is just under 1 %
** Medicare - originally passed when Dems controlled Congress and the White House under LBJ, while the younger George Bush pushed through unfunded Medicare prescription benefits, adding hugely to the Deficit
*** The GOP are 0 for 2 on balancing the budget, so signaling is all they do on the issue. See Fareed Zakaria in Time
Monday, November 15, 2010
Meet Rabbi Gil Perl
Melava Malka
Saturday Nov 20, 8 pm
Linda and Nathan Kirshstein invite everyone from WAM to a Melava Malka Saturday night at 8:00 pm at their home. Rabbi Gil Perl from Memphis, TN, will be in Charleston for Shabbos and joining us for the Melava Malka. Adults only, please.
Contact Nathan for further information:
Thursday, November 11, 2010
the current state of SA Jewry
*
Here is a concise article about most important issues facing SA Jewry from the Jerusalem Post by Caroline Glick.
Read it for the facts, and note that I am not endorsing Glick's opinions on everything in the article, such as how many "Muslims live in Cape Town".
South Africa presents significant dilemmas for Jews, specifically regarding mixed loyalties and the perceived similarities between SA's history of apartheid and Israel's relationship to it's Arab citizens and neighbors. I am not sure there is a happy middle ground to this question.
On the flip side, now that SA is a legitimate democracy, it should not get a free pass just because of its context and history e.g. silence on Zimbabwe and vocal support for divestment from Israel is simply hypocritical.
Here is a concise article about most important issues facing SA Jewry from the Jerusalem Post by Caroline Glick.
Read it for the facts, and note that I am not endorsing Glick's opinions on everything in the article, such as how many "Muslims live in Cape Town".
South Africa presents significant dilemmas for Jews, specifically regarding mixed loyalties and the perceived similarities between SA's history of apartheid and Israel's relationship to it's Arab citizens and neighbors. I am not sure there is a happy middle ground to this question.
On the flip side, now that SA is a legitimate democracy, it should not get a free pass just because of its context and history e.g. silence on Zimbabwe and vocal support for divestment from Israel is simply hypocritical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
