Politics, As Usual
 
Recently, in a CBS.MarketWatch.com article I wrote, I made an error.  Apparently,  it was a big one. I mistakenly blamed IRS for press release issued by the U.S. Treasury Department. 
 
April 9, 2004 U.S. Treasury Department Press release, ironically numbered JS-1313. 
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1313.htm
The press release contained this footnote: 
 
 America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
 
I was under the assumption that the US Treasury Department issues press releases for IRS - since so many of them are about taxes. Apparently not. IRS does their own press releases.  And they don't include political statements on them.
 
IRS already has a bad enough rap - they don't need me to blame them for something they didn't do. I really should have checked my facts better. In fact, my editor did ask me about it - and I told him the Treasury issued releases for IRS. So wrong. I really must check my facts better.
 
It seems, even though we removed the error from my article as soon as we learned of the error, other major national publications ran with the story.
 
So, world, please accept my apologies.
 
However, that doesn't change the fact that an agency of the United States government included such a partisan statement.  That brings up some questions
 
1)  Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases?
 
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
 
3) Who in their right mind would number a press release 1313 and not expect bad luck to follow?
 

---

 
Let's start with the second question:
 
2) Was it a political statement, or just support for the country's head of state?
 
Let's examine the statement more closely, shall we?
 
 America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation
 
Yup. It's definitely political. Without question, it's a swipe at the Democratic campaign.
 
Ironically enough, the economy grew dramatically under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and collapsed immediately after George Bush's  shockingly pessimistic inaugural speech. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy - he said the economy would be getting worse - and precipitated one of the biggest slumps in stock market history.
 
I remember hearing his speech and being shocked. Immediately, I thought, oh no! People will act on this. Why did he need to say that? At his inauguration.
 
For Treasury to be simply supportive of the administration, the press release should have read more like:
 
America continues to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are taking effect.
 
But if it said that,...there would have been no reason to include it with the press release.
 
There's no reason why the US Treasury, or any department of the government can't support the policies of the admintration. In fact, they should, that's their job.
 
But, let's go back to the first question:
 
1)  Should the US Treasury Department be including that kind of political statement with their press releases? 
 
Absolutely not.    
 
This is one of the things I find amazing about our politics. Why don't our elected officials understand?
 
When you are running for office, sure, you are a member of a party.
 
But once you get elected, you represent ALL your constituents.
You are supposed to look after the interests of all the people in your district, state, or area.
Your mandate is the good of the country - not your party.
 
 
I find it so frustrating that in all communications, on the House and Senate floor, in the media, in news articles, all legistlators are referred to by their names, their party affiliations and their state or district.
 
It is my opinion that once elected, they should be referred to by their names and states or districts, period. Leave the party out of it. Let everyone forget the party affiliation, including the legislator.
 
Frankly, being a financial kind of person, I feel that if elected officials persist in representing only the members of their party, they should not be paid by all their constituents.
 
Perhaps we ought to start a drive to adjust the salaries of elected officials. Those who only represent their parties should be paid a percentage of their assigned wages. They should only receive wages in proportion to the members of their party to the total registered voting population.
 
For instance, if they are Republican, and Republicans make up 35% of the voters in their constituency, they should receive only 35% of the budgeted salary.
 
This will never happen. But wouldn't it be something if it did?
 
Do you think it would help elected officials understand who they really represent?
 
Just one woman's opinion.
 
 
Eva Rosenberg
 
 P.S. That 1313 number...well, this release did cause trouble, didn't it? 

The State of the Union


Last week, President Bush delivered his State of the Union message.
Full text here

Sounds like we're in pretty good shape. People clapped a lot.
Two children were constantly targetted by the cameras. President
Bush singled out the current President of the Iraqi Governing
Council, Adnan Pachachi. I'll bet Mr. Pachachi never got this
much publicity in his life. But it was a good thing to do. We need
local support to make it possible for American troops to be able to
return home.

The President proposed one thing that I find disturbing, despite
all the applause.

"This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back
into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find
work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime
and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million
prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement
services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released
prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups. (Applause.)
America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison
open, the path ahead should lead to a better life. (Applause.) "
From the State of the Union Message

Uh, folks, did I miss something here? What are these 600,000 inmates
doing during all those years they are incarcerated? They seem to have
time to file lots of frivolous lawsuits, runs phone scams and
mail order scams from behind bars, work out and build great bodies.

Pardon me, but why can't we use fraction of the money Bush proposes
to spend - and educate them and train them while they are in prison.
I thought they were there to get rehabilitated. Why doesn't that
include job training? Why doesn't that include the three Rs?Many prisoners end up incarcerated because of their feelings of
powerlessness because they never were able to learn to read and
function in our world. HELP THEM WHILE THEY ARE THERE!



And would it hurt to teach basic etiquette? Perhaps if it starts
in the prisons, it would spread back out to society?

Seriously, though, while these folks are in prison, we have an
excellent opportunity to provide training so when the leave,
they are able to step into jobs that will support them AND be
able to interact with people who might be a little leery of them.
It takes time for all to adapt. But why not lay the groundwork
while they are IN prison? Why spend THREE HUNDRED MILLION
of our dollars, teaching them after they get out?

Heck, a condition of being accepted for parole should be that
they have succcessfully and politely completed the training.

But that's just one TaxMama's opinion....who wonders...
just who will be getting the contracts or grants to handle this
training, housing and mentoring?