SEARCH

Custom Search
Showing posts with label get involved. Show all posts
Showing posts with label get involved. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

What Can Ron Paul Accomplish in Tampa at the Convention


Tom Mullen’s latest Washington Timescolumn speculates on different ways Ron Paul delegates could possibly influence the Republican Party platform in Tampa. While this is just speculation at this point, it reminds us of the importance of accumulating delegates and the possibilities it affords:

The media continue to wonder what Paul hopes to accomplish with those delegates, although he has been clear from the beginning. His primary goal was to win the nomination. His secondary goal was to influence the direction of the Republican Party…

However, one thing everyone acknowledges is that no delegate to the RNC is bound to any candidate’s position on the issues. That means Paul’s 500 delegates can vote any way they want regarding the Republican Party platform.

That might not sound exciting, but consider the implications. The nominee is expected to adopt the platform as his own, or at least not take a position that directly contradicts it. Romney’s positions are diametrically opposed to Paul’s on a range of issues. What if the Ron Paul delegates get one or more of Paul’s positions into the platform?

For example, Romney supports the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war against nations that pose a threat to the security of the United States. Paul rejects this policy, insisting that Congress formally declare war before the president orders planned military action.

Contrary to popular belief, a declaration of war is not “permission” by the Congress to start a war. A declaration of war is just that, a declaration that war already exists. Whenever the Congress has declared war in the past, it has done so citing the overt acts of war that the nation in question had already committed against the United States. The whole concept of declaring war rules out preemptive war.

That’s why George W. Bush could not have obtained a declaration of war on Iraq. There were no overt acts of war committed by Iraq against the United States. Ditto for Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Bosnia, etc.

It would have been difficult to achieve a declaration of war against Afghanistan in light of the Taliban’s offer to prosecute Osama Bin Laden if evidence were presented of his guilt. Bush rejected the offer saying, “There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”

If Paul’s supporters were to get a declaration of war requirement into the Republican Party platform, preemptive war would indeed be “off the table.” Romney would have to defy the party or flip flop on his current position…

But there are other positions that Republicans might not be so opposed to. Paul wanted to cut $1 trillion during his first year as president. Romney only wants to cut future increases in spending. Paul’s supporters could get actual spending cuts into the platform.

Romney said that he would have signed the NDAA resolution that authorized the president to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without due process. Paul and his supporters vigorously oppose this. Since the bill was signed by Obama and not a Republican president, Paul’s delegates could conceivably get repeal of those provisions into the platform…

Ending the drug war, cutting military spending in general, and opposing a federal prohibition on gay marriage are just a few of the other issues upon which the candidates disagree. Chief among them for Paul has been an audit of the Federal Reserve System.

While endorsing Romney, Sen. Rand Paul said that Romney now supports an audit of the Federal Reserve System, something that Romney said he wouldn’t “take [his] effort and focus on” in 2011. While technically not a “flip flop,” it may be a harbinger of what Paul’s supporters can achieve by flexing their delegate muscle at the RNC.

If they do achieve a major change in the GOP platform, Romney may have to flip flop once again to avoid campaigning against his own party. That could be the first sign that the Ron Paul Revolution will be alive long after his presidential campaign has ended.

CA: Pushing welfare recipients to work



LOS ANGELES (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown wants to shift the safety net protecting California's most vulnerable residents pressured by a $16 billion budget deficit, the governor is proposing a major overhaul of the state's welfare-to-work program with the strategy of slashing people's benefits to motivate them to get jobs faster.

The move, if approved by the state Legislature as part of the 2012-13 budget package, would save $880 million, but beyond the savings, analysts say it represents a shift in the philosophy of how the Golden State helps its neediest residents.

"It's a reversal of the state's historic commitment to these families and children," said Scott Graves, senior policy analyst with the California Budget Project. "It's a very significant change."

California is the national leader in welfare recipients. About 3.8 percent of state residents were on welfare in 2010, the highest percentage in the country. In fact, California houses about a third of the nation's welfare recipients, while only housing one-eighth of the national population.

Most of the recipients, however, are children — more than three-quarters of the 1.5 million in the welfare-to-work program CalWORKs, which stands for California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids. The rest are mostly single mothers who must work or participate in job training and related activities to receive cash assistance.

The state has traditionally held a relatively generous attitude toward welfare. For instance, CalWORKs gives cash grants to children even when their parents are ineligible for benefits for various reasons, such as being illegal immigrants, receiving disability, or failing to abide by the program's rules. Only three other states — Indiana, Oregon and Arizona — have such an expansive policy.

California also allows parents to receive job services and cash grants for up to four years. Before last year, the limit was 60 months.

The policies have made the program an expensive budget line — the state spends $2.9 billion on CalWORKs and related programs — and an easy target for lawmakers looking for costs to trim with little political fallout. In years past, lawmakers have proposed doing away with benefits to children with ineligible parents and even slashing the whole CalWORKs program.

The state's budget woes have given renewed impetus to whittle away at CalWORKs. Last year, the maximum five-year benefit period shrunk to four years and monthly grants were diminished 8 percent. A family of three currently receives $638 a month, less than the rate in 1988.

For the next fiscal year, the governor is proposing more sweeping cutbacks, including a 27 percent cut in cash assistance to children with ineligible parents and further slashing the time limit for full benefits from four years to two years.

Other rule changes would restrict benefits to mothers of younger children and families earning poverty-level wages and increase sanctions on those who violate program terms.

"We felt the program was losing its focus of welfare-to-work," said Todd Bland, deputy director the state Department of Social Services' welfare-to-work division. "The reason we wanted to refocus is because of the very difficult budget environment."

The changes also come at a time when California is appealing federal penalties of $160 million because it failed to move enough welfare recipients to private sector jobs of at least 30 hours a week in 2008 and 2009, a requirement to receive federal money that helps pay for CalWORKs. Many California recipients are given part-time, publicly subsidized jobs so they get work experience.

CalWORKs recipients say getting a regular job that pays enough to support a family is not easy as lawmakers think.

Sarah Smith, a 31-year-old divorced mother of four in Los Angeles County, had been a stay-at-home mother since the age of 18, only working sporadically between having children. She was forced to turn to CalWORKs a year ago after her husband stopped paying child support. She received $850 a month in cash aid and $700 in food stamps.

She's also been able to make herself more marketable through the job services the program offers. She's beefed up her clerical skills, self-confidence and resume with a minimum-wage, temporary job as a customer service assistant with the county Department of Social Services, but the job ends this month.
She's hoping she now will be able to find a permanent job. If not, she will try for a subsidized job program where the county pays half her salary and the private employer pays the rest.

Policymakers don't realize that people need a chance to rebuild their lives, Smith said, adding that CalWORKs aid is far from enough to live on.
"It's still a juggling act," she said. "People are trying to get jobs. No one really wants to be on welfare. Most people are trying to get off it."

Nearly half of CalWORKs families move off the program within two years, but about 18 percent are long-term. Those families are often have very young children and headed by parents who lack a high school diploma or job skills, or have a family member with a disability, according to a report by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Brown's reforms aim to get parents off welfare before they become entrenched. The plan calls for parents to be hired or employable within two years of entering the program by providing job training and counseling, mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence support services, and child care. They must either work or participate in those activities to get the cash aid.

After two years, the services and some money would be cut off if they do not find a private sector job — a move that would affect about 130,000 parents, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office.

Those parents could still receive a much-reduced cash benefit for child maintenance. A parent with two children would receive $375 a month, a drop of $263.

If parents do find employment, they could still be eligible to receive services such as child care for another two years and some cash aid if their income remains below a certain level.

Social service providers say it's overly optimistic to expect the private sector to absorb tens of thousands of people, many with minimal job skills, with California's unemployment rate the second highest in the nation at 10.9 percent in April. Only 11 percent of CalWORKs parents had private sector jobs of at least 30 hours week in 2009, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

"CalWORKs recipients are living on a shoestring as it is," said Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association of California. "This is going to plunge many children into poverty and likely increase homelessness. You're shredding the safety net at a time when it's needed most."

Republicans say it's about time California pushed harder to get people to self-sufficiency, and say more is needed. Halving the time limit is a good move, but continuing to give parents cash for children with no strings attached defeats the purpose of welfare-to-work.

"It removes the responsibility from the parent. You're taking away the accountability from the oversight of the program," said Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, vice chairman of the Assembly Human Services Committee.

Instead of focusing on half measures of welfare reform, the governor should concentrate on job-stimulation strategies so people have a place to go, he said. "If there's no regulatory reform, he's wasting his time," Jones said.

The debate over CalWORKs' mission is likely to continue, especially if state revenues continue to fall short, said Caroline Danielson, policy fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.

"The interest is in reorienting the program toward work," she said.

Contact the reporter http://twitter.com/ChristinaHoag.

Monday, May 28, 2012

How to FIX this once great Country


Mylinks_profile_page




I think our current Congress ought to be flushed down the toilet. We need to bring in some HUMAN beings --who understand that their role is to COMPROMISE and allow us the right of SELF GOVERNANCE, if they don't plan to solve the problems. In Stockton, California, we are experiencing a lack of commitment from our City Council, as well as the current Mayor Ann Johnston. Besides Dale Fritchen, they all think they don't have to answer to anybody. How are we allowing this type of disrespect? If and when we rise to action and tell them to, only then will this madness stop.

Isn't it bad enough that we have been the foreclosure capital, car-theft capital, and murder capital in the nation. This is a tough time to live in Stockton, many of its residents are fearful of leaving their homes due to the escalating violence all around this city. One begins to wonder if it is even worth risking your life or possessions every time you leave your home. Due to being a victim in this city, I have witnessed a lot of this City's problems first hand. Such as car theft, armed robbery, street violence, home burglary's and so on.

And truthfully there is not just one finite solution for the City's crime problem, because the violent-crimes are results of gangs running amok in the streets of Stockton. In order to tackle the City's crime problems, this out of control council, needs to spend more to bring more activities for the youth. Invest into the SUSD and implement the "American Dream." Finally Show the world why Stockton is the most resilient city in the United States, not the most miserable. Heavy support from a private-public co-op, will allow us to issue charters to guarantee citizens a job, and one they will enjoy.



Sunday, May 13, 2012

QUOTE OF THE DAY





"We elect mayors and city council members for a reason: to represent us. Ballot box budgeting might solve one problem, but single-mindedly pursuing a single solution can create ripples with far wider repercussions." - Dan Oney


contact us by email: g.pitsch.85@gmail.com

Submit Domain Name

Submitdomainname.com

This Is Port City: Recent Posts

Taxes News Headlines - Yahoo! News