Watch Cenk Uygur on Current TV every night at 7 PM EST here on the Barefoot Accountant’s political-tax webblog

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cenk Uygur: President Barack Obama failed the economic recovery with a stimulus package too small

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Obama failed recovery with small stimulus packageCenk Uygur: Now I want to turn to a domestic issue here that is related to the economy. This is one of my pet peeves. Jay Carney was on the “Morning Joe” program and they asked him about how deep the recession is. Let’s listen to his answer and then I am going to set him straight.

Jay Carney: There was not a single, main stream, Wall Street, academic economist who knew at the time in January of 2009 just how deep the economic hole was that we were in. At that point we thought that we had shrunk by 3% in the fourth quarter of 2008, the last quarter that George W. Bush was President. As you know now, and I know now, it was 9%.

Cenk Uygur: No one could have seen it coming! This is what every government official has said for the last ten years. Hurricaine Katrina: no one could have seen it except the weatherman. Iraq war going disasterously: no one could have seen it except all of the people who did see it. And that list goes on and on.

Now the recession. Now it is funny that he says January of 2009 because right at that moment here are all of the economists who said it was terrible.

Paul Krugman: he said that the plan to jump start the economy was “nowhere near big enough”…it was “unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap”. And he said it was “the most dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression.” But nobody could have seen it coming. Do you think it is just Krugman?

Martin Feldstein, Harvard professor and former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan: he said “this recession is likely to last longer and be more damaging than any since the depression of the 1930’s.” But nobody could have seen it coming.

James Galbraith: “there are many good reasons to think” that America is in “a true financial crisis of the type in the 1930s.” But nobody could have seen it coming.

These are all in January and February of 2009.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics: “the economy appears headed toward its worst downturn since the Great Depression.” But nobody could have seen it coming.

Look, they say that to avoid responsibility. The reality is many progressives in this country said your stimulus package is way too small, and you did not listen. Instead you listened to Tim Geithner, who said, hey, you know what? Make a third of it tax cuts.

Instead you gave into Republicans. Okay, okay, okay, we will keep it under a trillion dollars. We don’t want to overspend.

And what happened? We have unemployment that at this point not only near 9% but as you will find out later in the show in reality it is closer to 11%. It was too small, and people saw it coming. You just didn’t listen to them because you listened to the establishment and not the progressives.

I am telling you that as a friend because you got to turn around; you got to change course.

Transcribed by the Barefoot Accountant

Accountants CPA Hartford, Connecticut, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

What caused the economic collapse, recession, depression, in 2008? How did Wall Street bring on America’s economic collapse?

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Hank Paulson and the Treasury Department from Too Big to FailLehman exacerbated AIG.   The simultaneous payouts of Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) put catastrophic pressure on AIG. 

Wall Street started bundling home loans together as mortgage-backed securities and selling slices of those bundles to investors.  And they were making big money.  So they started pushing the lenders saying, “come on, we need more loans.” 

The lenders already had given loans to borrowers with good credit so they went bottom feeding:  that is, they lowered their criteria.   Before you needed a credit score of 620 and a down payment of 20%; later they would settle for 500, no money down.  And the buyer, the regular guy on the street, assumed that the experts knew what they were doing.  He said to himself, “if the banks are willing to loan me money, I must be able to afford it.”  So he reached for the American Dream:  he bought that house. 

The banks knew that securities based on shit-bagged mortgages were risky.  So to control their downside, the banks started buying a kind of insurance.  If mortgages defaulted, the insurance company would pay:  “default swaps”.  The banks insured their potential losses to move the risk off their books so they could invest more, and make more money.  While a lot of companies insured their stuff, one was dumb enough to take on an almost unbelievable amount of risk:  AIG. 

Why did they do that?  Fees!  Hundreds of millions in fees.  AIG figured that the housing market would just keep going up. 

But then the unexpected happened:  housing prices went down.  Why?  The poor bastards who bought their dream houses, when the teaser rates on their mortgages ran out, their payments went up beyond what they could afford to pay, and they defaulted.  And with the high default rates, the supply of existing housing on the market dramatically increased, driving prices down.  As a result of the spiraling increases in defaults, and the falling prices in housing prices, the mortgage-backed securities tanked, and AIG not only had to pay off the swaps, but it had to pay all of them  off, all over the world, and all at the same time.  Needless to say, AIG could not pay, and therefore AIG went under. 

Since AIG had insured a great number of banks, they all booked massive losses at the same time.  And many of them, in turn, went under.  And the whole financial system came tumbling down in 2008.

You may wonder, why wasn’t it regulated?  The simple answer is that no one in the financial services industry wanted it regulated.  They were all making too much money.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Is Sarbanes Oxley dead? Why are financial fraud investigations down 57% after the biggest financial fraud in our country’s history?

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Cenk Uygur, Host of the Young Turks, Current TVCenk Uygur:  You often hear the excuse from the government:  “Well, we would love to do the financial fraud cases but we just don’t have the resources and besides we have been awfully tough on the banks.”  Laugh along with me. 

But Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes actually did a very good story where he talked to Larry Brewer who is the head of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice, and he asked him about the Sarbanes Oxley Act.  The Sarbanes Oxley Act is an act that says CEOs have to sign on saying they are not committing any fraud in this company, and if it turns out not to be true, they get up to five years in prison.

Now with this financial collapse, companies like Countrywide where there was widescale fraud is a perfect place to use the Sarbanes Oxley Act to hold those top executives accountable.  And Kroft asks him here in this segment of the interview why he didn’t do this.

Steve Kroft:  Do you lack confidence of bringing cases under Sarbanes Oxley?

Larry Brewer, Head of the Criminal Division, Department of JusticeLarry Brewer:  Steve, no one has really accused this Department of Justice or this Division or me of lacking confidence.  If you look at the prosecutors all over the country, they are bringing record cases with respect to all kinds of criminal laws.  Sarbanes Oxley is a tool but it’s only one tool. 

Cenk Uygur:  No one is accusing you?  I’m accusing you.  And record cases?  That simply isn’t true.  In fact, we have the numbers to show you.

Prosecutions of Financial FraudA Syracuse study actually looked into this and they found out that the prosecution of federal financial cases went from a high of about 3,500 cases in 1999 down to 1,251 cases in 2011, and 1,365 cases in the last full year of 2010. So that number went way down, not up:  fraud cases down 57%.  So what happened to the fearsome Obama Department of Justice that no one accused of not following through on these cases?  I accuse you because I have the numbers.

State Fraud InvestigationsA lot of people will say, Cenk, you don’t understand, there is nothing that they can do, they just don’t have the resources.  Really?  Interesting because David Sirota points out in an article in the Washington Post today about when the government goes after food stamps.  It turns out that when they are going after food stamp fraud, they’ve got plenty of resources. 

USDA Undercover InvestigationsIn fact, at the state level in 2010 they conducted 847,000 fraud investigations.  Okay that’s the state level, but how about the federal level?  Nearly 5,000 undercover investigations, which take longer, 5,000 versus only 1,200 against the financial executives.  Gee, I wonder where their priorities are; I can’t quite tell.

By the way, do you know how much there is in food stamp fraud in the country?  $753 million.  Now that sounds like a lot, and I want you to pursue that, I don’t want there to be fraud at that level, but the banks did not do millions, they did billions, not billions, sometimes trillions of dollars from us.  That’s much more important but somehow you just can’t find the resources for it.

Anita McLemoreMatt Taibbi also had a good piece about this.  He talked about a mother of two in Mississippi, named Anita McLemore, she apparently asked for food stamps when she had a criminal record, having been busted on drugs before.  How dare you?  Apparently you can’t feed your kids if you have a criminal record from before.  So they said, this is fraud.  We got you.  How much fraud did she do?  She did $4,367 of fraud.  Not millions, not billions, not trillions, just $4,367 worth of fraud.  Do you know how much she got?  She got three years in prison.

Here’s what Judge Wingate said when sending her away:  

“The defendant’s criminal record is simply abominable …. She has been the beneficiary of government generosity in state court.”

Well, how about the guys that have been the beneficiary of trillions of dollars at the federal level?  No, we don’t have resources for them.  We have to go after mothers of two who are trying to feed their kids.

Money Spent on War on Drugs in 2010But there are other things that we spend our money on.  How much money did we spend on the war on drugs?  $15 billion that the federal government spent:  that’s $500 a second.  You see, when you have the resources, apparently you know where to spend them.  $25 billion at the state and local level as well.  So $40 billion for the war on drugs, but for financial fraud, golly gee willickers, we just ran out of time and money, we were just about to get to it after the war on drugs and food stamp fraud.

Do you know how much they spent in New York City just evicting Occupy Wall Street?  $13 million.  But golly when it comes to Goldman Sachs, what’s weird is that they  just ran out of time.

By the way, Goldman Sachs, I believe, was the number one contributor to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008.  A wild coincidence I’m sure.

Now let me explain something to you.  It’s not like I think Obama is personally corrupt like he gets in a smoked-filled room with Lloyd Blankfein and says, how do you want me to cheat the system for you.  He’s not Blago, right?  But it is that he responds to financial incentives probably often at times not even recognizing it. 

Campaign finance reform is at the root of all of this.  Until that is changed, you are going to be going for the person or the company that has the money on you.  And that’s just the way it works.   Until that is fixed, until Citizens United is turned over, until there is a constitutional amendment, that’s the root of the problem, nothing is going to change priorities wise.

Transcribed by the Barefoot Accountant

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cenk Uygur on President Obama’s born-again Progressivism. Obama does not walk the talk.

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Cenk Uygur on Barack Obama's ProgressivenessCenk Uygur:  President Obama is in Kansas yesterday, and something surprising happened:  he gave a really progressive speech.  Okay, that’s fantastic.  But as you read or heard the speech, I thought, I wish he meant it.  So what I am going to do is break down the speech and show you what he said and what he has actually done over the last three years.  So let’s look at the first part.

President Obama:  born-again Progressive?President Barack Obama:  For most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded.  Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people.  Fewer and fewer people who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success.  Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments, wealthier than ever before.

Cenk Uygur:  Yeah, that sounds great.  The only question is, what did you do about it in the last three years.  And let me tell you the real record.  When it came to hedge fund managers, they get a 15% tax rate, which is lower than that of the average American.  When it came to capital investment, dividend investment…capital investment is over 50% for just the top 1%…that tax rate is also at 15%, and also less than that of the average American.  So why did they get to keep all those tax breaks under this so-called progressive administration?

Meanwhile trillions in spending cuts, including heating assistance to poor families who are now getting totally cut off:  in New Jersey there are a quarter of a million families who need heat in the middle of winter who won’t be getting it….So why did you maintain that system?  I wish that you really believed what you were saying.  Now let’s go to the next clip.

President Barack Obama:  Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history, and what did it get us?  The slowest job growth in half a century.

Cenk Uygur:  Alright, that’s true.  So why did you renew those Bush tax cuts?!  I know what your answer is:  Oh my God, the Republicans made me do it.  But if the Republicans make you always do what they want, then why did we elect a progressive president?  So I can’t believe that you are talking about the Bush tax cuts when you agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts.  To me, all this talk is fine but you gotta walk the talk, and he didn’t do it.  Now watch this next part.

President Barack Obama:  We all know the story by now.  Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them.  Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risks and selling it off.  Huge bets and huge bonuses made with other people’s money on the line.  Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all of this but looked the other way. 

The White House Office of Information and Regulatory AffairsCenk Uygur:  Right.  So what did you do with the regulators?  Under Bush, I agree with you that the regulators were totally relieved of duty, basically.  There’s a little office called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  What it does is after the regulations are passed in the different departments, it waters them down.  So under Bush, 64% of the regulations got watered down, which is terrible, right?   Under Obama, it was 76%:  it was more!!!  Why did you water down regulations more than Bush did?  That doesn’t make any sense? 

EPA Regulations Watered Down under ObamaHow about for the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency.  84% of the regulations were watered down.  So where are those regulators that you were talking about?  I wish you meant it but you didn’t.  Here’s another part.

President Barack Obama:   Now in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from some kind of collective amnesia.  After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis, since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.  In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle class Americans for way too many years. 

Cenk Uygur:  So why are you letting them?  Now let me tell you the record.  The number of fraud cases brought by Obama’s Justice Department is lower than the number brought by Bush’s Justice Department.  We got the stats on that in the next segment of our broadcast.  When you talk about how the banks are doing their business, Obama talks a half of a mean game about it, but then when he turns around, they can still do the derivatives trading just like they could before, the banks are even larger than they were before, and they still gamble with our money.  So what did you do to fix it?

Fed loans to banks versus homeownersBut when elections come around, all of a sudden Obama sounds like a progressive.  Now let me show you a chart which is absolutely stunning.  The big banks got $7.7 trillion from the Fed, and, of course, they got another $700 billion from TARP.  And what did they get for the homeowners, the guys that Obama says that he’s looking out for now?  $2.6 billion. 

So where were you when the time was for walking and not just for talking?  And now the last part that annoyed or enraged me the most.

President Barack Obama:  Inequality also distorts our democracy.  It gives an outsized voice to the few, who can afford high-priced lobbyists, unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder.  It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them.  That our elected officials are not looking out for the interests of most Americans.

Cenk Uygur:  But what did you do about it?  I thought that was the whole point of your campaign in 2008.  That’s why I was excited by it.  But was there a single campaign finance reform legislation?  Public financing?  Nothing.  Taking on corporate personhood?  Nothing.  Unlimited corporation donations?  Every once in a while he would say, “oh, it’s not a good thing.”  But what did he do about it?  What legislation did he push?  Nothing.  That is what is so frustrating.

Now you might ask, if he doesn’t act progressive, why is he talking progressive?  That’s because an election is coming up.  In fact, a guy who has an online show actually predicted that Obama would do exactly this a bunch of months ago.  Let’s check that out.

Cenk Uygur on June 22 2011 predicting Obama's progressiveness for 2012 electionVideo of Cenk Uygur on TYT:  President Obama tells us if he gets a second term, oh, boy, then he’s going to be a lion.  He was a lamb the whole first three years but watch out, as we get closer to the election, believe me, President Obama is going to sound a lot more progressive because the country is progressive.  He knows that’s how you get votes. 

Cenk Uygur:  And that turned out to be exactly right.  Here we go.  This is basically his first unofficial campaign event and all of a sudden President Obama sounds like a real progressive.  Me, personally, I’m not buying it.

But I want to talk to a real progressive.  Most certainly the most progressive senator, Bernie Sanders from Vermont.  Senator Sanders, great to have you with us.  First question for you:  you just heard what I said about President Obama.  Do you believe him when he does these great big progressive speeches?

Senator Bernie Sanders from VermontSenator Bernie Sanders:  Well, I think you ask the right question, Cenk, and that is, where has he been for the last three years?  The election is coming up.  He understands that the American people are sick and tired of seeing the rich get richer, the middle class collapsed, poverty growing, and he’s talking to that issue.

But in terms of Wall Street, we need to be breaking up these giant banks.  The President was not there. He reappointed Ben Bernanke to be chairman of the Fed.  We needed a new approach toward the Fed.  He didn’t do that.  So I think the answer is that what the American people have to do is say to this President, “look, if you want our support, you are going to have to do more than just talk the talk.  We want some legislation, we want some fight, we want you to start standing up, taking on the Republicans, and if they filibuster, you take them on, don’t cave in.”

Cenk Uygur:  So my theory is, that you act progressive to get votes because in fact Washington knows—they always claim otherwise on TV—but they know that the voters are actually progressive.  They can read polls, right?  But when you go to get the money, well, then you’ve got to be pro-establishment.  So Obama acts progressive, gets the votes, and then when he goes in office he gets Ben Bernanke, as you said, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Ron Emanuel, all the establishment guys.  He collects money for three years, and then he turns around and wants our vote again.

Bernie Sanders:  This is what Washington does know.  Washington does know that the American people do not want to cut social security, medicare, and Medicaid.  Washington knows that the American people want the government to start taking on the big money interests and Wall Street.  Washington understands that the American people are demanding that the wealthiest folks in this country start paying their fair share of taxes and that we end all of these outrageous loopholes that corporations now enjoy.  That’s what the polls tell us.  That’s what the vast majority of the American people want.

You are raising the question, which is a very good question, and I applaud you for raising it, is the President just giving us what the polls are telling him to do or is he, in fact, going to stand up and fight.  And what I am suggesting right now is that the progressive movement in this country has got to tell this President, “don’t take us for granted.  We want to see you right now, not next term, right now leading the real fight against right-wing extremism.” 

Cenk Uygur:  Now that’s exactly right, Senator Sanders.  So I think that the most important question is, how can the President prove himself over the next year, because the speeches are easy.  We heard the speeches before, then we saw the action.  So what can he do now before the election—he still has a year left—that would signal to progressives, that he is actually progressive and actually trying to get something done?

Bernie Sanders:  Alright, the President has got to go up there and say, “you know what?  I talked a little bit about cutting social security and medicare and Medicaid, I was wrong.  I ain’t going to do that.  In the middle of a recession, these are life and death programs for tens and tens of millions of Americans.  You have my word, we are going to defend to the death social security, medicare, and Medicaid.”

The President right now, as we go forward, you raised this point, I come from a cold weather state, the President talked about major cuts in the heating assistance program for low income people and seniors, the President has got to get on board and say, “sorry, we are going to defend those programs.  We are going to ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes.”

I’ll tell you another issue that the Occupy Wall Street people raised very prominently, and that is the power of Wall Street:  the need to start breaking up these huge banks, the top six of which have assets equivalent to two-third’s of the GDP of the United States of America.  I would love to see this President get up there and say, “you know what?  Wall Street caused this recession.  We got many banks that are bigger now than they were before we bailed them out.  We are going to break them up.  That’s what we are going to do.  If Wall Street doesn’t like it, so what.”

Cenk Uygur:  Senator Sanders, unfortunately we are out of time, but I totally agree with you.  And there is a way to do it.  Unfortunately right now he is still offering medicare and social security cuts as concessions, which drives me crazy.  But you know what?  Even past the one hundred mistakes, if between now and the election, he breaks up the big banks, I say, alright, great, that’s it, mission accomplished.  That’s good enough for me.  I don’t want everything.  I just want some sign that you actually care and that you are actually going to take some action.

Bernie Sanders:  Cenk, I think what you want and the American people want to know that he has the guts to mix it up with the big money folks.

Cenk Uygur:  Exactly.  Senator Sanders who does have that guts, thank you so very much for joining us on the program. 

Transcribed by the Barefoot Accountant

Cenk Uygur on Current TV, interview of Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, on President Barack Obama’s recent progressive speeches.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The inequity of America’s tax laws. Barefoot Accountant’s interview of Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Democratic primary candidate for U.S. Senate. Part III of interview.

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

Barefoot Accountant:  Let go on to discussing the equity of the tax laws.  Warren Buffett’s effective tax rate has been reported to be 11%.  In comparison, that of the average American is approximately 18%, without including payroll taxes, which would bring it in total to 25% for those employed, and up to 33% for those self-employed.

What do you think needs to be done to create tax equity in America. Do you think that the highest marginal tax rate should be increased on the wealthy? Presently, it’s 35%. As you know, last December President Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for another two years. As you recall, under President Clinton, the highest marginal tax rate was 39.6%.

The Progressive Democratic Caucus has proposed a dramatic increase in the highest marginal tax rate to 49%. I can recall the highest marginal tax rate in the 1950s being 91% under President Eisenhower. And I do not think that it was below 75% until 1980 when Ronald Reagan took office.

What do you think should be done to create tax equity in America?

Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Democratic candidate for US SenateSusan Bysiewicz: First of all there is a very large gap between the richest and the poorest in our country, and this gap has never been so large in our nation’s history. Here’s why we are where we are.

We are in a situation where we have a huge deficit and that deficit is with us for two main reasons:

First, because we had two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost us $1.26 trillion, and I opposed both of those wars from the start. But we put $1.26 trillion on our national credit card for those wars.

And in addition we have the costs of the Bush tax cuts that you mentioned, the largest in the history of our country. And those tax cuts have cost almost $3 trillion. So those tax cuts cost more than two and one-half times what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost. And I don’t think many Americans are aware how expensive those tax cuts were.

So you take those two things and you have $4 trillion of debt that they brought us.  And the question is how do we get out of that very large hole.  And cuts alone in spending are not going to get us there. 

And what we will have to do is have shared sacrifice, and we will have to raise revenue.  And I think first and foremost we should end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.  I think that is something that is very important to do.

We had the opportunity to do that last year before the election; unfortunately, there wasn’t the political will to do that. And we really need to address that sooner rather than later because if we don’t, those inequities are going to continue. And I say that because with the raising of the debt ceiling, we see even more burden being put on the most vulnerable of our citizens: you know, children, the elderly, the sick.

We really need to rearrange our national priorities if we are to address these issues that you are talking about.

Barefoot Accountant: I don’t know if this is a fair question, but I was disappointed to see that in the negotiations involving the deficit and the debt ceiling there would be no tax increases but they are expected to cut $2.1 trillion, including cuts in social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Would you have voted for that bill?

Susan Bysiewicz: No. Adamantly no. I will say this. We had an opportunity when this debt ceiling debate began to address two really important issues. And one of those issues was to address job creation. And I don’t see anything in that legislation that helps grows jobs.

And the second part of the issue that didn’t get addressed for the long term is putting our country on strong fiscal footing. There was an opportunity to do both of those things. Unfortunately we really didn’t do either. We did enough to make sure there wasn’t a financial collapse.

So I understand why some members of Congress voted for the raising of the debt ceiling. It’s something that we had to do, I believe. But the opportunity was lost to make some long term structural changes to reduce our debt and to create jobs in our country.

Transcribed by William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

November 22, 2011 Letter from Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Democratic Primary Candidate for the U.S. Senate: Same Old Story

Same Old Story

Susan Bysiewicz for U.S. SenateNov 22

Dear William,

It’s the same old story.

Once again Congress has been paralyzed by the gridlock of partisan politics. Even as we face a financial crisis unparalleled in our nation’s history, Washington is more concerned with party politics than with tackling the massive debt that threatens to cripple our government.

Extraordinary legislative powers were granted to the supercommittee so that it could make real progress on balancing our budget – yet even the supercommittee was unable to set politics aside and put our country first.

What’s worse is that the failure of the supercommittee is just one of several times this year that our own government has brought the American economy to the brink of collapse.

This spring, we faced the real possibility of a government shutdown when Congress only narrowly passed a last-minute spending bill, and over the summer, there was the threat of default during the heated debt ceiling debate.

We can’t keep playing these games.

Our country needs real leaders who want to solve our problems – not add to them. Help me break the stalemate in Washington by supporting my campaign with a contribution of $5, $15, or $25 today.

It’s time for Washington to make some real decisions about how to get our budget back on track, and we should start by developing a tax code that is fair for all Americans. That means repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and eliminating loopholes that allow many big corporations to pay little or no taxes.

Nearly four years have passed since the start of the recession, yet Congress still doesn’t have its priorities straight. The failure of the supercommittee is just one more example of Washington putting partisan politics before progress – even as American families suffer.

The stakes are too high to continue on with business as usual. Can you contribute $5, $15, or $25 right now to help me bring my record of getting things done to Washington?

Together, we can make Washington start working for the American people again.

Sincerely,

PS – Let’s send the message that we’re going to hold Washington accountable! Help me end November strong by supporting my campaign with a contribution today.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We need a guy with guts in the Oval Office to fight for the middle class of America. Alan Grayson should be President. He attacked Wall Street, the Big Banks, and the Federal Reserve while Obama capitulated and Clinton rolled over.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Disappointed in the CL&P’s power restoration efforts to storms Irene and Alfred? Then sign the petition below!

Jeffrey Butler, COO of CL&P

Jeffrey Butler, COO of CL&P

If you are disappointed in CL&P’s power restoration efforts, particularly its response time, then please sign the petition below, urging Governor Dannel Malloy to propose the imposition of steep penalties on Connecticut utility companies for failing to meet acceptable standards of power restoration after storm outages.

In 2009 Massachusetts imposed steep penalties on utility companies for failing to meet legislated standards of power restoration:  2.5% of their annual revenues.  Under such a system of standards and penalties, CL&P would have been assessed penalties of $20 million.

Connecticut needs to send a warning to Jeffrey Butler and CL&P:  devote more attention and resources to your power restoration efforts or else pay a steep penalty!

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A few helpful campaign suggestions to Herman Cain in his week of need

It's been a rough week for Herman Cain

And I thought not having heat, hot water, and electricity for a week was rough!

Let’s face it:  Herman Cain had a really rough week.  Even though I did not have any heat, hot water, or electricity in Connecticut all week due to the effects of the severe snow storm Alfred, I still would not have exchanged weeks with Herman Cain.  Imagine having three women coming out and accusing you of sexual harassment in a week’s time!

Although I do not think Herman Cain is any more qualified to be President of the United States than my cat, Murphy, who, I sincerely believe, is more intelligent than Herman Cain, I do feel sorry for what he endured this week in the media.  Consequently, I decided to give him a few tips to help his campaign and to overcome any possible slip in his ratings from all of this recent publicity involving the harassment of women by him.

Michele Bachmann 6-6-6

What do you get when you combine 6 with 9 three times? Something more meaningful than 9-9-9!

First, instead of using the 9-9-9 as the slogan for his tax plan, in keeping with his recent alleged sexual notoriety and his alleged sexual harassment, I suggest that he capitalize on such by changing his numbskull nein-nein-nein slogan to one conveying a more human and loving touch, such as 69-69-69.  That would certainly be an attention getter!  It definitely would be a little more catchy than the redundant 9-9-9, with its devilish combination of Michele Bachmann’s assessment of Herman Cain’s tax plan–that is, her renaming of it as the 6-6-6 tax plan–with Herman’s simplistic 9-9-9, while at the same time reminding all of us of how well he successfully settled those sexual harassment charges against him, the little devil.  This is certain to appeal to the majority of voters, especially to those who have not the faintest idea of its sexual connotations, and to the religious right, the most important voting segment of the Republican party, because of its devilish overtones and because, quite frankly, many of them do not have the faintest idea of its sexual connotations either.

Alan Alda
“Since you spent the night at my apartment, I thought that I would serve you breakfast in bed.”

And instead of slogans containing Coolidge allusions to his former pizza business, such as a “pizza in every oven”, I again suggest something more human, kinder, and less chauvinistic, such as, “since you spent the night at my apartment, I thought that I would serve you breakfast in bed.”  Of course, this would bestow upon Herman that sweet Alan Alda aura, helping him to get more of the woman vote in 2012, since three women in a week charging him with sexual harassment has certainly diminish his prospects in that all-important segment.

Herman Cain wearing a hat

Who's Your Daddy?

While at the same time, to prevent Herman Cain from losing any male votes from any allusions to Alan Alda in the attempt to appeal to the women voters, I would then add a counter-touch of machismo to his image with another slogan, such as, “Who’s your Daddy?”, appropriately captioned under a picture of Herman wearing a fedora and sunglasses and resembling a pimp, which is actually the true vocation of all politicians, who have been known to pander for money 24/7.  Although many would advise Herman Cain to burn his pimp hat, especially in the light of sexual harassment charges, I heartily endorse him looking like a pimp since it would be a sure wallet opener for campaign contributions of at least a fin.

Other sure campaign slogan winners for Herman Cain include:

Instead of the trite “change you can believe in” or “hope and change”, how about “Herman Cain 2012 – Change…into something more comfortable!”

And instead of the idiotic “We want Cain”, how about “Cain:  You know you want it!”

Finally, how about something really honest about Cain’s supporters – “Cain will kill every Able American on the Left!”

I sure hope these modest campaign suggestions help Herman Cain.  I would hate to see him drop out of the race any time soon since that would certainly make the 2012 Republican primaries less entertaining than they have been thus far.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment