Today, however, I chanced upon an interesting tidbit of information. There were two “third party” candidates in the race along with Franken and the incumbent, Norm Coleman. The Independent Party candidate, Dean Barkley, won over 437,000 votes. Speculation is that those votes would have been divided between Franken and Coleman, with the edge going to Franken. The Constitution Party candidate for the Minnesota Senate seat, James Niemackl, won somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000 votes. Unlike the votes for Dean Barkley, however, those votes likely came straight out of Norm Coleman’s tally.

Thoughts?

This past election season, Augustson ran for Congress in the same district, garnering 9,283 votes or just above 4 percent.  His chances of winning the special election are low in a highly Democratic district, but a Democratic victory is not guaranteed.  There will certainly be a low turnout and Augustson has wider name recognition than before the November election.  Also, it has yet to be seen how Illinois voters will react to the Democratic party at the ballot box in relation to the ongoing scandal with their Democratic governor.

Alan Augustson has posted the following video on his website explaining his candidacy:

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org

For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org

The hazardous waste disaster is evidence that the US should stop using coal to generate electricity, say Greens

WASHINGTON, DC — Green Party leaders strongly criticized the Environmental Protection Agency’s response to the recent spill of 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant.

“The EPA has failed to follow through on its stated intention to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste,” said Frank Jeffers of the Green Party’s Eco-Action Committee (http://www.gp.org/committees/ecoaction/index.php). “Nationwide, how big is this mess? Very very big. There are thousands of coal waste sites all over the country, and when it comes to coal wastes, you can figure about anything that could be in it, is in it.”

According to a December 29 article in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/us/30sludge.html), byproducts from the Kingston plant in just one year include “45,000 pounds of arsenic, 49,000 pounds of lead, 1.4 million pounds of barium, 91,000 pounds of chromium and 140,000 pounds of manganese. Those metals can cause cancer, liver damage and neurological complications, among other health problems.”

As a result of the spill, the toxins have now been poured into a 400 acre area, rendering the land uninhabitable.

Greens called the spill a preventable disaster, noting that if the EPA had implemented its recommendation in 2000 to label coal ash as a hazardous waste, the coal ash would have been contained in a pond with a composite liner system.

According to the Times article, the EPA backed off this recommendation “in the face of industry opposition, promising instead to issue national guidelines for proper ash disposal, though it never did.”

“The enforcement of such guidelines is not optional. Safe drinking water standards are not optional. Such cowardice in the face of industry pressure is unacceptable. Americans deserve a strong advocate for their health and the health of their environment,” said Linda Cree, co-chair of the Eco-Action Committee.

Greens called on President-elect Obama’s chosen EPA administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, to:

* Label coal ash as hazardous waste

* Retrofit all coal ash ponds and coal ash landfills with composite liner systems

* Require a complete and accurate inventory of coal combustion waste (CCW) sites, including abandoned sites

* Issue public advisories on the hazards posed to communities by all CCW sites

* Relocate and reimburse local residents impacted by the sludge

* Mitigate damage to local water supplies and establish a local environmental advocate to monitor water quality

Green Party leaders said that the sheer size of the Kingston coal ash spill, estimated to be more than 40 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, is evidence that the US should begin to phase out the use of coal to generate electricity.

The Green Party has long advocated phasing out existing coal plants and a ban on new ones, part of an aggressive national policy based on conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy. See the Green Party EcoAction Committee’s “First 100 Days Energy and Environmental Policy” (http://www.gp.org/committees/ecoaction/documents/First_100_Days.pdf).

“With more than 400 coal power plants in the US, the odds of a disaster of this magnitude occurring again are alarmingly high. To safeguard our shared natural heritage, we must adopt the EPA’s prior recommendation that coal ash be treated as hazardous waste and contained as such. Anything less, in the face of foreseeable catastrophe, is irresponsible,” said Art Browning, member of the Harris County (Texas) Green Party and producer of Greenwatch Live! (Houston Public Access TV). Mr. Browning witnessed the dangerous effects of fly ash from a coal-fired electricity generation plant in Kingston, Tennessee, where he grew up.

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

Tally of Green election victories http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/election-results.html
Green candidate news http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/candidate-news.php
Green candidate database for 2008 and other campaign information: http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml
Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml
Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers
Green Party ballot access page http://www.gp.org/2008-elections

“Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation”
The New York Times, January 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html

~ END ~

Video found on the front page of the Green Party national webpage (Gp.org) and at Green Party Watch.

Posted to IPR by Paulie

January 5, 2009 – Home With My Parents

Last night I got to spend time with my parents and tell them all about what happened. I’ll make a full report to you on next steps when I’ve recovered. Thank you for all the kind messages. I read everything.

It’s clear that our movement for peace and justice must not end. We all are needed and doing nothing is not an option.

US Supreme Court Puts Brewer v Nader on January 16 Conference :

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Brewer v Nader at its January 16, 2009 conference. This is the case in which the Arizona Secretary of State hopes to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her appeal, over out-of-state petitioners, and whether an early June petition deadline is unconstitutional, at least as applied to independent presidential candidates.

Philadelphia Inquirer Publishes Letter on Nader Fees

The January 4 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer has this letter on the action of Pennsylvania courts requiring Ralph Nader to pay costs to the people who challenged his 2004 petition. Greg Kafoury, who wrote the letter, is an attorney who has supported Nader.

Reposted at http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=827

by Froma Harrop
Rasmussen Reports

First come the shady operators, then comes the collapse, then comes the bailout, then come the shady operators. That, too often, is the sad history of financial meltdowns and their cleanups.

The closing days of the Bush administration offer the familiar spectacle of bad actors descending on a government program fat with new money and starved of oversight. The object of plunder this time is a Federal Housing Administration program recently empowered to extend an additional $300 billion in loan guarantees, so reports BusinessWeek.

The plunderers include the seediest of subprime mortgage lenders, back for a second feeding, this time off the taxpayers. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which manages the FHA, has fined, sued and even removed some of the rogue lenders from the program, but they keep coming back.

“Within the next 12 to 18 months, there is going to be FHA-insurance Armageddon,” Gary Lacefield, a former federal mortgage investigator-turned-consultant in Arlington, Texas, told the magazine.

Criminal convictions, bankruptcies, state sanctions and civil lawsuits rarely pose an obstacle to these players. They’ve changed their spiel, and some have changed their name.

And who’s checking? Since 2007, the number of FHA-authorized lenders has more than doubled to 36,000, while the FHA’s staff stayed flat at 1,000 people. The unit that monitors the lenders and approves new participants had only five slots, two of them vacant in recent months.

At the height of mortgage mania, the stodgy FHA lost business to subprime hotshots flashing those low come-on rates. After all, the agency required some down payment and proof of an ability to pay the money back. These were boring 30-year fixed-rate loans.

Now FHA mortgages are the main game. The number of new ones has jumped from 60,000 last January to 140,000 in September.

The FHA guidelines endure, but unscrupulous mortgage companies can work around them. They can still use phony data to certify unqualified buyers and inflate the prices of the houses being sold. And they are doing just that. The loss to taxpayers from new FHA loans could exceed $100 billion over the next five years, predicts an industry newsletter, Inside Mortgage Finance.

What kind of companies are being licensed to offer 100-percent-taxpayer-guaranteed mortgages?

There’s a company in Coral Gables, Fla., with the wonderful name Great Country Mortgage Bankers. It broke FHA rules by letting borrowers take on mortgage and condo fees totaling more than 31 percent of monthly income. And the default rate on its FHA loans stood at 13 times the local average. Still, Great Country Mortgage was kept on as an authorized FHA agent until last November.

Nationstar Mortgage, based near Dallas, last year paid Kentucky a $105,000 settlement over allegations that it used unlicensed loan officers and faked borrowers’ credit scores. That didn’t stop it from getting a green light in March to give out FHA loans. A Nationstar executive subsequently called FHA loans his company’s “high-growth channel.”

First Magnus Financial, in Tucson, Ariz., earned a multitude of state and federal citations for sleazy and unlawful lending practices. It reopened under a new name, StoneWater Mortgage — same executives in the same building — and received a license to dole out FHA loans.

An agency spokesman noted that FHA-licensed lenders must disclose past regulatory sanctions and may not employ anyone with a criminal record. Good idea, that honor system. As we know, crooks never lie.

Will the new guard in Washington take more than a passing interest in what happens to the hundreds of billions flying out the door? The House Financial Services Committee plans to hold a hearing Friday on “FHA Oversight of Loan Originators.” Sounds like a promising start.

By Mary Starrett
Constitution Party Communications Director

The word “fascism” has been used for decades to deride political ideologies of both the right and left. Fact is, fascism has come to America and we have allowed it to happen.

Back in 1944 economist and author John Flynn pointed out that we have been laying the basecoat of fascism here in the U.S. in the book As We Go Marching.

“But alas, the most terrifying aspect of the whole fascist episode is the dark fact that most of its poisons are generated not by evil men or evil peoples, but by quite ordinary men in search of an answer to the baffling problems that beset every society. Nothing could have been further from the minds of most of them than the final brutish and obscene result. The gangster comes upon the stage only when the scene has been made ready for him by his blundering precursors.”

Flynn wouldn’t be at all surprised to see that what he predicted 65 years ago is happening in our country today. He said “all the elements of facism” include the “organization of the economic society as a planned economy under the supervision of the state.”

Flynn laid it all out saying we faced “ a planned… economy,” “militarism as an economic weapon,” “imperialism” and ultimately “dictatorship.”

I thought of Flynn during the presidential debates when both candidates talked up the necessity for war in foreign countries, for mandating “sustainable” energy, for demands for a government-controlled health care system, for more farm subsidies, for “bailing out” the banking industry, despite the voter’s outcry against it. And I thought of him again when the “bailout” was passed by Congress because Flynn had written:

“Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans…who are convinced that the present economic system is washed up…and who wish to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and the cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of a great national banker and investor, borrowing billions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies…at crushing costs to support the industry of war….which will become our greatest industry…adding …global planning …under the authority of a centralized government in which the executive will hold…all the powers, with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society.”

Fascism didn’t come to America wearing jack boots and brown shirts. It came respectably-clad in suits and ties and calling itself Republicans and Democrats.

The fascism basecoat was laid with each government intervention in the free market system, each undeclared and unconstitutional war and every single incursion by the state into private enterprises like banking and auto manufacturing. And both the R’s and the D’s were behind it all.

As we watched the basecoat dry we continued to allow the incremental creeping toward fascism by electing those who made no secret of their plans to redistribute wealth, make the state the boss of us and dismantle the free enterprise system.

Both McCain and Obama and elected officials in both parties have consistently supported elements of fascism and they never had to worry they’d lose because of it. It was only a matter of how much fascism Americans wanted each election cycle.

Elected officials know that as members of the controlling elite that masquerades as two separate and opposing factions, they will not be deposed. The vast majority will be easily re-elected despite their opposition to the majority of Americans on such issues as illegal immigration, secure borders, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the “Bailout.”

Unless Americans make a determined move to unseat incumbents for these and other assaults against the Constitution, we can expect nothing more than a shallacking by those now controlling our government in both “Big Box” parties.

ballot-access.org/2009/01/07/deadlines-for-introducing-bills-are-rapidly-approaching/:

Many state legislatures have rigid deadlines for introducing bills. Those deadlines were in December 2008 in Indiana, Iowa, and Oklahoma. A previous post had said that the Indiana deadline was in mid-January, but actually it was on December 15. Therefore, it is already too late to introduce a ballot access improvement bill in Indiana in 2009. However, Indiana has one-year legislative sessions, so it will be possible to seek sponsors for bills to be introduced in late 2009 for the 2010 session. State Senator Sue Landske (R-Lake County) has already shown some interest in improving Indiana ballot access.

States with January 2009 deadlines for bills to be introduced this year are: Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

States with February 2009 deadlines are: Arizona, California, Kentucky, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont.

Local candidate for state education post pushes new ideas, better pay for teachers

Price is a professor at National-Louis University where he teaches a variety of education and contemporary policy classes for future teachers and those going back to school for graduate classes.

“For me, it’s public service,” he said. “I’m very happy with my job, but we’re entering a new era for public education where the old answers are not going to do it anymore. Moving forward, we have to look at teacher quality, and the issue there is we need to ramp up the pay for teachers, professionalize the teacher corps and look at how students are doing each year.”

Price said the current public school financing hamstrings urban districts such as Kenosha and Racine, and he’d like to see a constitutional amendment to equalize the school funding formula.

“The idea is to not take away from wealthier districts like Whitefish Bay, but allow every district of wealthy and modest means the same access to funds,” he said. “We have to look at everything on the table. Some states are looking at getting money from gambling. I’m not opposed to gambling, but I am opposed to gambling on kids’ futures. We have to come up with answers so middle class homeowners aren’t priced out of their home, paying for referendums.”

Price, 45, criticized current state superintendent Libby Burmaster’s stance on virtual schools. At first she did not question them, but then spoke out against the Wisconsin Virtual Academy when the state teachers union sued the school and her.

“That was an instance of a lack of leadership,” Price said. “What we call online education is going to be a blended education in the future. More than likely, schools will need to do more with the Internet, but to supplement the education and not replace it. We need to think of the public first and how to embrace a unique idea in the framework of public education.”

Price also said he is opposed to vouchers, but supports charter schools if they are managed by local boards, like Kenosha’s charter schools.

“When taxes go to a for-profit agency, then it loses credibility,” Price said.

If he is elected, Price said he supports fully funding No Child Left Behind or dismantling the program and giving control back to local districts. He wrote about his feelings in the book, “The Myth and Reality of No Child Left Behind: Public Education and High Stakes Assessment.”

“I think it might have been started by some people who had good intentions, and some who didn’t,” he said. “But I’m really anxious about the federal government having too much involvement, and under No Child Left Behind, it’s very disproportionate. I’m against that. I’m in favor of local control and local decision making.”

Price said he has a history of forming unions while working as a graduate student and calls himself one of the most pro-labor candidates.

“I would hope (the Wisconsin Education Association) gives everyone a chance to make their case for endorsement,” Price said. “I can stand up with anyone on labor issues, plus I have the flexibility of not being constrained by any particular union.

“This is an open field. Running is a duty of being a citizen if you want to get your ideas out there. I would argue that in a democracy we have to be open to debate from everyone.”

The Green National Committee is considering a new budget for the national party. This proposed budget calls for a basic budget just over $400,000. The GNC will have to begin voting on this proposed budget on the 9th of this month, with a one week time frame for votes to be cast.

A quick review of the budget shows that Emily Citkowski is asking for a reduction in hours to half-time, and Richard Scott, online fundraising director, has left that post, with independent contractors and other staff set to take over those responsibilities.

The Proposed 2009 Budget, Line Item notes and Fundraising narrative can be found through this link.

H/T Ballot Access News

“It appears to be a personal project from an industrious Brazilian Green.”
-Green Ferret in Green Party Watch comments

Madison’s so called “progressive” Mayor Dave Cieslewicz has had his issues with popular Common Councilor Brenda Konkel, and this year he sought to recruit a candidate to run against her. Brenda Konkel is involved with both the Green Party and the local party Progressive Dane. Konkel, who has run unopposed for the last two terms, faces four challengers and a February 17 primary. From the Wisconsin State Journal:

“I’ve been somewhat disappointed with Brenda and her approach to issues,” Cieslewicz said. “I’m just looking for some different leadership there.”

The mayor, Konkel said, got active in her district because she stands up on issues and demands transparency when the system is designed to cut deals behind the scenes.

“He felt because I bring things up at the council, I blindside him,” said Konkel, a leader in the leftist political party Progressive Dane who has focused on housing and social justice issues. “He’s a nice guy but he’s cutthroat when it comes to politics. I guess I’m in his way.”

But Cieslewicz might have been able to stay away.

The mayor said he didn’t recruit any of the candidates who emerged to face Konkel — Dennis Denure, Sherman Hackbarth, Bridget Maniaci, a former Cieslewicz intern, and Adam Walsh.

“There are four challengers,” the mayor said. “It indicates the level of dissatisfaction in her district with her leadership.”

Cieslewicz, who faces re-election in 2011, said he might endorse one of the four or candidates in other races.

City Council President Tim Bruer, who said he advised the Cieslewicz administration against becoming involved in races, said the mayor’s actions are the exception but not without precedent.

Konkel welcomed the challenge.

“It’s good for democracy,” she said. “We should have four people running in every race throughout the city.”

Brenda Konkel is considered the favorite to win this race.

In today’s political arena, it’s sometimes hard to tell left from right, and right from left. This makes finding the political “center” that much more difficult. So, is president-elect Barack Obama actually a centrist?

While Obama currently appears to be not as extreme as his campaign rhetoric might have suggested, he still has a firm commitment to the political philosophy of government existing as a tool for social good rather than an obstacle to increased freedom (as Libertarians believe). This makes him a left-leaning liberal, even if some of his Republican colleagues have adopted the same paternalistic philosophy during the past decade.

Obama’s commitment to big government is quite clear in his latest plans for an economic stimulus package, which includes the biggest public works project since the 1950s–costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. There is also a discussion about including tax cuts in the stimulus package, something of which the Libertarian Party would approve. These tax cuts are expected to attract conservative support that otherwise would not have been there with the building projects alone.

The tax cut plans have earned Obama the respect of many conservatives who now believe Obama to be floating more towards the center rather than to the far-left. Are they justified in their belief?

We say no.

Obama’s plans for tax cuts are not based upon a genuine philosophical dedication to cutting taxes. Though some may say that it doesn’t really matter why taxes are cut so long as they are cut, Obama’s motivations shine a light on his true colors. Media reports regarding his stimulus plan show Obama’s impetus for tax cuts to be strictly based on pragmatic reasoning, and not a true belief in the virtue of tax cuts (less government, people deserve to keep the fruits of their labor, etc.).

Centrist? Only when it works.

Republicans could be easily put to shame in this situation–especially those Republicans in Congress who failed to stand up against the Bush administration’s elephantine spending habits–if Obama were truly a centrist. Not only would he cut taxes, he’d also reduce government expenditures in the process, which maintains a healthy fiscal policy. Instead, Obama will be cutting taxes and increasing government spending, furthering the national debt and essentially borrowing money from future generations of taxpayers.

Without an offset in spending, some question even calling Obama’s plans actual tax cuts. “An increase in spending coupled with lower tax collections is an INCREASE in taxes,” writes George Mason University Economics Professor Russell Roberts on his blog, Café Hayek. “If I spend more money and collect less, the government is promising to collect more taxes in the future. It is not a tax cut.”

Milton Friedman also pointed out that the true cost of government is what it spends, not what it taxes.

The lack of plans to reduce government spending while cutting taxes puts Obama on par with his Republican predecessor; however, it does not make him a centrist.

In the end, Obama still believes government has a responsibility to micromanage the economy: a hallmark trait of big-government liberals, both Democratic and Republican. His proposed plans for tax cuts are not indicative of any philosophical faithfulness to a conservative fiscal policy, but rather represent maneuvers of political expediency.

While Libertarians will take tax cuts when and where we can, we also hope that the cuts are permanent and not just a short-lived political ploy. We also recognize that tax cuts must be offset with (or, hopefully, topped by) a cut in government spending.

Should Obama reverse course with his stimulus plan and offer permanent tax cuts supplemented by an equal amount of cuts to government programs and agencies, we’ll gladly hail Obama as anything he wishes to be called.

This article is written by Libertarian Party National Chairman William Redpath and was orginally published at The Hill.