News

It’s always that case when an avid newspaper page flipper scans through the headlines as well as the meager articles in search of a story that they feel really matters to them. I for one am definitely one of these individuals. I also know there are many of you page flippers out there who just flip around and say, “oh that looks interesting….but it has too many words in it so I will just keep skimming.” I do that! I am criticizing no one. Nonetheless, a certain article struck my attention one day while I was reading the New York Times. The NY Times is a good read, especially its business section that, more than usually, contains a decent topic of discussion or in their case, journalism. That article discusses a significant platform as well as proposed legislation that is passing through the Democratic party. The legislation is the proposal of a HUGE increase in the minimum wage cap for the workers in the United States. Many states that have noticed growing economies are on the motive to begin reforming old minimum wage rates.

State legislators specifically in New York ($7.25), New Jersey($7.25), Connecticut($8.25), Illinois($8.25) and many other states are pushing to raise the minimum wage above the federal level. Massachusetts has a Senate bill right now within its state legislator with the intention of increasing the states minimum wage. Senate Bill 951 was “reported favorably by committee and referred committee on Senate Ways and Means,” within the state to progressively add to the minimum wage until it reaches $10.00 in July of 2013.

This legislation would make Massachusetts the state with the highest minimum wage, surpassing the state of Washington whose minimum wage is set of $9.04.

These legislative actions that are occurring at only state levels may soon make their way to seeing a federal debate over raising the federal minimum wage. After all it is election season and on the heels of movements such as the Occupy Wall Street as well as the demands by labor groups, Democrats in Congress may attempt the proposal of a new minimum wage referendum bill.

(more…)

The Budget Plan

This James Report Podcast goes into an in depth summary of the new 2013 fiscal Budget Plan proposed by the Obama Administration to the United States Congress. This plan is loaded with multiple proposals and practices that have been mentioned in the administrations previous plans and acts such as the American Jobs Act, the Affordable Care Act, the Budget Control Act, and the Deficit Reduction Plan given to the Joint Committee of Deficit Reduction.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The 2013 Budget Plan provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget

by Alma McCarty

Imagine logging onto your computer. You click the Firefox button and open your browser. You go to Google only to see that you cannot.

“Must be a mistake,” you think to yourself, “or maybe it’s this faulty connection.”

You start to silently curse the WiFi gods for this miniature disaster when you realize that SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act,  has been put into effect.

Google is a goner and Yahoo, too. And for  the two people who actually use Bing, well there’s a solid chance that it’s cashed in its chips a little earlier than expected.

But why are these websites we hold so near and dear in a time of searching need suddenly censored? Because, as a search engine, Google contains  links to other websites with potentially illegal material, such as pirated music and movies. This is something we all know already. Chances are, many of us have been to a few,  even downloaded music for free. We’d like to think this is harmless, that one or two illegally downloaded items can’t hurt. We are so used to the fact that we have pretty much total freedom on the Internet to search and surf as much as we desire.

But flash-forward to a time where the Internet isn’t so wild and free: it’s a desolate, soulless, post-apocalyptic place with censored material everywhere.

SOPA, in partnership with its less worldly cousin PIPA, the Protect Intellectual Property Act, will hold serious power if passed by Congress. Long story short, these proposed bills would give legal power to sue search engines, censor websites, and shut down anything with a link to a link to illegal material.

Now, I’m not a huge techie but even I know this is bad. Potentially, some little kid in Middle-of-Nowhere, USA, could be sued by a major company because it is “copyright infringement.” Goodbye, YouTube.

Tonight, several websites including Wikipedia and Reddit are going on strike by blacking out, protesting SOPA and PIPA. Google will not go completely dark, but rather will post a protest link on the homepage.

Google is quoted in a Computerworld article stating “”Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet. So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our US home page.”

Basically, the Internet companies are angered because the government will allegedly take control of the Internet; a monster, which the masses believed could not be tamed. Other companies just want copyrights to be accounted for, but this course of action seems too extreme for my taste.

Stealing is wrong, but isn’t there another way? What do you think?

Joint Committee In session

The deadline is closing near. The Joint Committee of Deficit Reduction has to make a deal or automatic cuts to the federal government will ensue. Tune in to the James Report Podcast and get some info about the Committee as well as how critical its decision is to you.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

N.Y.P.D. officers arrested over 100 Occupy Wall Street demonstrators Tuesday morning as Zuccotti Park was cleared of the tents that define the Occupy movement. The eviction began around 1 a.m. and ended at about 4:30 a.m., though the park remained closed while city crews continued their cleanup efforts. NY State Supreme Court Justice Michael Stalling cited concern for public health and sanitation, as well as the movement’s exclusion of the park from the general public and its effect on nearby businesses when ruling in favor of the vacation of Zuccotti Park. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg explained that the decision was due to the “intolerable” condition of the park. When they return, demonstrators “must follow all park rules,” declared Mayor Bloomberg. Many protesters complied with the order, though some formed a barricade to keep police away. The protesters lamented that their First Amendment rights were infringed upon, a claim discounted Mayor Bloomberg, who said the protesters “rights do not include the right to endanger the public or infringe on the rights of others.” Demonstrators made several unsuccessful attempts to reenter the park. Persisting with the movement, many protesters gathered a few blocks away in Foley Square and Duarte Park.  A few demonstrators accused the police of misconduct; three were treated for minor injuries. The park reopened at 6 p.m. with public use laws fully enforced. Occupiers reentered the park with a mix of emotions, unable to set up camp.

President Barack Obama has issued close to 100 executive orders since taking office in 2009. One of his earliest criticized orders was his order to close the Guantanamo Bay camp. Approximately 90 or so executive orders later President Obama has released more than 5 executive orders in the past two months. Most of these orders are being heavily publicized by the Obama Administration as being apart of President Obama’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign to move around Congress in order to implement the policies of his administration. The attempts by the president to enact multiple executive orders shows great tension between the executive and legislative branches of our government. Although policies are coming out of the administration, are the means by which the President is executing them truly ethical to the standards of presidential power?

(more…)

Obama signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010.

The Supreme Court announced today it will hear a challenge to President Obama’s signature healthcare overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which barely passed through Congress in March of 2010.  The Affordable Care Act consumed much of Obama’s first year as president and exacerbated the heated political divide in Washington and in communities around the U.S.

Since Obama signed the hotly contested  legislation into law, Republicans and some conservative Democrats have used the controversial measure–which mandates that all U.S. citizens purchase health insurance by the year 2014–as firepower in an on-going debate detailing the role of government in the everyday lives of American citizens.  A number of federal courts have already ruled on the Affordable Care Act as recently as last Tuesday, when a conservative judge upheld the law in a Washington appeals court.  Rulings have largely been mixed and tend to fall along party lines.

The Supreme Court was expected to hear a challenge to the law after President Obama himself requested it do so before the end of 2012.  The hearing may come as soon as March of next year, with a ruling in June.  Implications for the 2012 presidential race are unclear, when Barack Obama will battle for a second term in what will likely be an extremely close election.  Some say a defeat, or partial defeat, would be just as beneficial for Obama as a victory.

A defeat–or a victory–will likely recast the race relatively late in the game.  If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, a partial defeat may indeed help Obama, since components of the legislation remain popular among the public in isolation.  A wholesale defeat, it seems to me, might prove positive as well if Obama is able to shape the conversation around Republicans’ refusal to deal with the country’s ongoing health crisis.  It will also rob any of the G.O.P. presidential candidates of a major goal– to eliminate the law altogether.  A defeat for Obama may also be a defeat for the Republican Party, since it will necessarily re-focus the debate on other issues, which may be less pressing to the conservative base.

Do you think the law will be upheld?  If not, what implications will it bear for Obama’s run for re-election next year?  Leave us a comment below.

My mother had a cardboard cutout of Joe Paterno.

She highly ranked him alongside her other idols, Nelson Mandela and Sacagawea.

She never went to Penn State. She was never a huge follower of college football. But there he was, JoePa, standing somewhere in her living room to greet often-shocked visitors.

Like many fans, she admired the way he played the game. A Huffington Post Article quotes former linebacker Paul Posluszny as he once said “[Paterno] teaches us about really just growing up and being a man. Besides football, he’s preparing us to be good men in life.”

It wasn’t just about winning; it was about ethics, morals, and grades, all of which contributed to 409 career wins in 46 years. He made sure his players went to class. He stood as the “self-appointed conscience,” a role model amid the “scandal and shady characters.”

Who would have thought such a career could be tainted?

Penn State fired its 84-year-old head coach for allegedly not reporting child sex-abuse involving his former defensive coordinator and assistant Jerry Sandusky. The university also fired its president Graham Spanier. Sandusky is charged with 40 criminal counts and accused of molesting eight boys over a 15-year period. Authorities believe Paterno did not do enough, and his inaction cost him his job.

Enraged students took to the streets and congregated outside the administration building. They rioted. They threw rocks. They tore down a lamppost. They tipped over a news van.

One student asked, “What do they expect when they tell us at 10 o’clock that they fired our football coach?” reports the New York Times.

A graduate assistant told Paterno in 2002 that he had seen Sandusky in the shower with a young boy. Paterno then reported this charge to athletic director Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz, who did not report the incident to authorities.

Paterno said he should have gone beyond legal responsibilities and wishes he had done more. He admitted he was in the wrong.

The atrocities are not any less vile and revolting, and Sandusky is still a sick and twisted human being. It’s truly terrible that it wasn’t pressed upon further, and that Paterno did not work harder to bring this scandal to light. However, he reported something he had heard to his superiors who are the ones who should have investigated further instead of brushing it off. It would have been different if he had seen the incident himself; in that case there would be no excuse for not reporting it to the cops.

The cardboard cutout remains, but will the respect?

Listen to what we had to say on the show and leave a comment below:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

A bizarre campaign ad released by GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain last week raised eyebrows and garnered a surprising amount of internet buzz.  It claims Cain is a candidate like America has never seen before.

In fact, nobody seems to know exactly what kind of candidate he is.

The ad, which won’t run on television, features campaign aide Mark Block speaking with a frenzied voice directly to the camera.  It concludes with a dramatic moment in which Block takes a drag on his cigarette–shockingly, perhaps, considering the recent stigma surrounding cigarette smoking on-screen.  The ad looks for a moment like a bad cop movie, then cuts to an uncomfortable close-up in which Cain himself smiles slowly into the camera.

It’s an unusual move, even for a candidate as erratic as Cain is proving to be.  An exposé ran by the New York Times this week revealed a startling rule set by the Cain campaign for aides: when riding in a car with the candidate, “do not speak unless spoken to.”  Ex-campaign aides speaking anonymously suggested his campaign is disorganized and geared, as we already knew, more toward selling books than winning the nomination.  But that’s not really what concerns me here.

What concerns me is that I think the video is hilarious.  Effective?  That’s another question.  Cain has gone on the record saying he himself thinks the ad is funny, and indeed– his campaign often tries to sell him on his humor.  (A previous campaign ad features a Western parody.)

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that a third of Republican voters disliked or “hated” the ad, while another third “loved” or liked it, and the remaining third were indifferent.  Among his core base, that seems spotty at best.  What’s worse, the ad’s clear emphasis on the smoking segment distracts from his campaign message.  According to Reuters, fifty percent of viewers felt the smoking moment stood out above all else.

Some suggest the campaign targeted middle-class Tea Party voters with the ad.  It does seem to resonate with certain demographics.  Yet, given Herman Cain’s past work in Washington, it raises questions about his intention: despite running as a Washington ‘outsider,’ Cain lobbied for the restaurant industry against smoking bans in the nineties, which was virtually the face of the tobacco industry after Congress passed curt regulations on cigarette makers.  Was the ad meant to be a provocation?  Was it tongue-in-cheek?  Was it just short-sighted?

There is no easy answer.  But it seems, given the candidate’s difficulty in the past few weeks defending key stances, that his facetious manner may cause problems down the road.  And in any case– embracing such a bizarre ad the national level seems quite myopic.

Do you think Cain’s ad is effective?  Do you think his approach to campaigning will become a liability in the future?  Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Sources:

<http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/29/us-usa-campaign-cain-poll-idUSTRE79R6GU20111029>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/us/politics/herman-cain-running-as-outsider-came-to-washington-as-lobbyist.html>