Sean Duffy's not living in the Real World- on $174k

Congressman confesses he can't make it on $174k.... for real?

YOU HAVE TO PRESS CONFESSES TO SEE HIS RANT... IT'S LAUGHABLE...

WHAT'S EVEN MORE AMAZING IS HE BELIEVES  HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH!! 

DUFFY HAS TAKEN STEPS TODAY TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T SEE IT... enjoy!!!

".... I can guarantee you, or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I'm living high on the hog, I've got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I'm not living high on the hog..." 

Sean Duffy...March 29, 2011

If he can't make it on $174k, He needs his head examined!!!!

$174,000 / 12 months = $14,500 a month.
I suggest the Congressman invest in an accountant.   His Mortgage was approved at a debt to income ratio up to a maximum  of 45%, that was calculated with the student loans being in repayment status and that was ALL on $90k annual salary... So, since his income has nearly doubled he should be fine, right? Who doubles their income in less than one year and says they can't make it? Most American's would be happy.

May I also suggest you buy some condoms.




update: 03/31.11:
Reports also show that his wife made $56k.  So for 2009 they made $154k. What's wrong with this guy?

Background facts:

Average Wisconsin family earns just above $39,000. According to the US Census Bureau, the median income of a household in Wisconsin is $39,026. [US Census Bureau Fast Facts]

Duffy earned over $90,000 in 2009. In 2009, while serving as Ashland County District Attorney, Duffy received a salary of $93,123. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2009]

Duffy earned nearly $90,000 in 2007. In 2007, while serving as Ashland County District Attorney, Duffy received a salary of $88,258. [PostCresent.com, 2007]

Duffy announced his run for Congress in July 2009. In July 2009, Duffy announced he would run for Wisconsin’s seventh congressional seat. [WAOW, 7/08/09]

Duffy did not step down as Ashland County D.A. until July 2010. In June 2010, nearly a after having announced his run for Congress, Duffy announced he would be resigning from his office effective at the end of the month. [WSAW, 6/04/10]

Duffy reimbursed himself more than $10,000 for expenses during the campaign. According to FEC reports, Duffy was reimbursed a total of $10,402.72 from his federal campaign account for “mileage.”  The reimbursements occurred during a time period dating from September 30, 2009 through March 10, 2010.  [Duffy FEC reports, 2009-10, www.fec.org]

If there is a  reason why I do this blog it's to point out the simple fact that it matters who you elect. Get past the pretty boy looks and you find he is as dumb as a box of rocks. Furthermore, if he can't make it on his salary, how the hell is he going to balance the deficit? The deficit is a result of out of control spending, really what can he say about that? 

Fallon vs. Obama: PERCEPTION EQUALS REALITY?

I have been talking about this for a while... Who is advising the President?

One of the reason FDR did the fireside chats was to keep the American people updated on what he was doing. Jimmy Fallon is right. If I am unemployed and your doing you brackets and not talking about jobs it would bother me. 

It's the ECONOMY stupid-III

"It's the economy, stupid" was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H. W. Bush. For a time, Bush was considered unbeatable because of foreign policy developments such as the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War. The phrase, made popular by Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, refers to the notion that Clinton was a better choice because Bush had not adequately addressed the economy, which had recently undergone a recession.

It's seems like all we hear these days is deficit this, deficit that. As talk of a Government shut down hangs in the balance. I started to wonder how would African-Americans be impacted under these proposed deficit cuts? I cannot say I was surprised in what I found and if I am writing it here it cant be good. As I have reported here on the blog before, the expectations of the population growth of Hispanics will help to make  minorities the  majority by 2050. With that being said; Latinos, African-Americans, Asians and Native Americans will ultimately be responsible for President Bush's out of control deficit spending. This demographical shift will fall on the shoulders of our children.  They will pay for Bush's bad decisions. 

In December 2010, President Obama's deficit commission  released it's proposed deficit cuts.   A proposed $4 Trillion  in  deficit cuts would be achieved through spending cuts in the area's  of domestic and defense spending as well as tax revenue cuts.  Economist say that "Minorities will be hit harder under these proposed cuts." Disagreeing on timing of proposed deficit cuts, economist Alegman Austin stated that "We can't be talking about deficit reduction until we have a strong economy" Austin went on to say "It would be like talking about someone's physical state while they were plagued with fever." 

Don't get fooled here, it's timely to talk about deficit cuts but, if it stalls the economy that's the best that the Republican's  could hope for.  All this talk about how tax cuts for the rich will help the economy is pure bunk. It's still President Reagan's trickle down economics, which did not work then and will not work now. If you are unfamiliar with this idea, Reagan believed,  thus all Republican's still believe, that if you cut the tax's of the rich their expansion in wealth will "Trickle Down" to the rest of society. It does not work. In a 2003 report that covered  50 years, found no direct correlation between tax cuts for the wealthy and growth in the economy,  growth in the Income, growth in wages or  in job growth. The report did find that when taxes were higher these four areas also saw growth.

Keep in mind that this is just President Obama's proposal, every President needs to have an idea, a blue-print for Congress. It's all politics after that. The House will  pass their proposal and then the Senate will pass their proposal.  The final deficit cuts that are enacted will be a composite of the Presidents, The House and The Senate. It has been contentious. USA Today reports that the House Republicans  just released their proposed cuts in spending of about $5.3 Billion, still leaving $4.8 Billion in "earmarks."

What are "earmarks," these are pet projects that Congressional members usually bring home to their states. The earmarks here are mostly for the military spending.  Like I said before, this is where it gets tricky because Republicans go after Obama for being a Socialist while they pad legislation with earmarks, which ultimately hurts all of us. So much for spreading that pain around.

The concern that most have in Obama's proposal is an attempt to rein in out of control spending in social programs and making broader cuts in Medicaid and Medicare which would impact minorities. The payroll tax holiday provision, a 2% reduction in payroll taxes,  that most of us received at the beginning of the year, will indirectly shrink the coffers of Social Security down the road. If current and future payees  have to face a smaller check  this impacts our community.

Furthermore, making them more dependent on their family members who are already suffering under current economic conditions.  Some are proposing a change in the retirement age would also create financial hardships for minorities.  

 Bloomberg reporter, James Rowley, wrote ; that if  the Democrats and Republicans are in a standoff over this year’s budget, with Republicans insisting on $61 billion in spending reductions. Current spending authority ends April 8, and a failure to agree by then would force non-essential government functions to shut down.

Noteworthy: In the news Today-

Hispanic population exceeds 50 million, firmly nation's No. 2 group - CNN.com:

"The growing Hispanic population in the United States has reached a new milestone, topping 50 million, or 16.3% of the nation, officially solidifying its position as the country's second-largest group, U.S. Census Bureau officials said Thursday.

The Asian population also grew 43%, increasing from 10.2 million in 2000 to 14.7 million in 2010, officials said. Asians now account for about 5% of the nation's population.

The African-American population, which grew by about 4.3 million, is now about 40 million, or 12.6% of the population, a slight increase over 12.3% in 2000, officials said.

Persons reporting "some other race" grew by 3.7 million, to 19 million, or 5.5% of the nation, figures show.

"The face of the country is changing," Jeffrey Passel, demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, told CNN."

Inside Job: Minorities once again suffer the most!!!

The movie is still playing in some theaters you can also rent it at Redbox, for a $1 it's well worth it.

So, that it does not appear that I am jumping on the "inside Job" bandwagon, I actually went and read articles quoted in this film. 

I love this stuff. I have worked in banking for over 15 years so I knew most of this. The film successfully connects the dots.

Everyone who is looking for a job, or is underemployed, has loss a home, or knows someone who has suffered this fate should see this movie. I went to the theater and I was the only African American in the theater. Sad but true. Go see this and share your thought with me on this.

Who knew what and when:

1- FBI 2004 Mortgage fraud report:
 2004 Financial crisis report to the public.

2- Raghuram Rajan Former Chief Economist for IMF:
 "Has financial development made world risker?"

3- Nouriel Roubini's 2006 Warnings:
 "Why Central Banks Should Burst Bubbles* "

4- Allan Sloan's 2007 Article in Fortune Magazine:
 Junk Mortgages Under The Microscope

5- Allan Sloan's 2007 Article In Washington Post:
 An Unsavory Slice of Sub-prime

6- Bill Ackerman's 2007 Powerpoint:
"Who Holds The Bag?"

The best is the Ackerman's Powerpoint presentation: amazing!

Obama finally talks about Gas prices...

Obama finally addresses the increasing gas prices after prices have increased .41 cents more than last month.  Economist have calculated that this is $41 Billion that has been spent on gas instead of in the economy.  My problem, once again, is that the President appears to behind the curve instead of in front of the curve. If what he believes was so simple that they would just tap the reserves, why didn't he say that last week, two weeks ago?  

I love it when the President sends "his people" out to address these concerns, they all do.  Their professional opinion really doesn't help. It always sounds like a bunch of rich people, saying "we need to wait and see what happens," "we are not going to respond yet."  It rubs me that wrong way, why? Because I know that there are working families that don't have the extra money to pay at the pump. Working families, that if they had extra funds would maybe put more food on the table, pay down some incurred expense. I know that this is not a concern the talking heads confront everyday, they have extra funds to handle theses increases, most Americans do not.  Furthermore, this argument that the tax-cuts, that were approved in December, will off set that increase, this logic falls on deaf ears.  Any slow down in this economy means more or less that another minority may not get a job.  From all appearances it really does look like the economy has turned the corner. However, any slow down or even the appearance of a drag on the economy means that those 13.7 million unemployed may not secure a job. Unfortunately,  I need, we need, some assurances that we are really turning the corner. 

February 2011: State of Unemployment for Minorities:

Overall Unemployment Blacks: 15.3%

Overall Latino Unemployment: 11.6%

Overall White Unemployment: 8%

National Unemployment: 8.9%

-----------------------------------------------

Black Men   16.2%      16.5%...01/2010

 White Men   7.8%         7.9%

-----------------------------------------------

Black Women   13%    12.9%...01/22011

 White Women   7.1%     7.0%

-----------------------------------------------

Black Teens    38.4%    45.4%...01/2011

 White Teens   21.3%    22.8%

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Under-Employment rate for February was 15.9% --

slight fall from 16.7 in December.  

Long term Unemployed: 6%

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 NULPI  

Voter Mandate?

With all the political posturing going on in Wisconsin, I thought to myself, is this what the voters wanted? Is this what the voters were saying in the 2010 Mid-term elections?  I was watching a news clip about the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, when one of the political bloggers being interviewed commented  that The Governor has always been fiscally conservative, but never during his campaign for office he never intimated anything about ending collective bargaining for public employees. That actually shocked me, not so much because a politician rarely tells the truth but, he had hidden his true intentions to the voting public. Furthermore, had he been truthful about his intent, would he had even been elected to office?

I started to think about the whole concept of voter mandate, what does that really mean? Does a mandate mean that you can ignore the realties that surround you? Does a voter mandate mean that you don't have to work with your colleagues,  rather that be on the state level or federal level. So, I started at the beginning, what does the word mandate mean in the context of politics; In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative. 

The next question I had, was there a voter mandate for the Republican parties agenda?  I should also note that prior to the 2010 Mid-term elections four major things were of significance?  The unemployment factor/jobs, the emergence of the TEA party, the growing concerns about the deficit, and the low approval for the President and the Congress.    It is safe to say that for most people, the concerns about of the TEA party and the deficit were of least importance to them.  The President rode in on hope and by the time the midterm election came around many were dumb founded on what they actually got. Many asking is he ready for prime time?  Countless political blunders giving the impression of a political novice.  However, just down the street public sentiment was even worse, elected officials in both parties were suffering from historically low job approval ratings.

So, the 2010 Mid-term elections have come and gone, what remains are the polling results of that election cycle. The Republican's won more seats historically than previous elections.  However, they failed to gain control of both Houses of congress,  just the House, as we all know by now. For the record,  President Clinton loss control of congress during his mid-term elections in 1996.  Historians now note that this would have been the beginning of the end for Clinton had he not started to do things differently then he did in his first two-years. Another important point, the visceral of hate for Clinton was far greater than it is for Obama. So, to see Clinton win a re-election bid at that particular time seemed unlikely. Had the Republicans not over-reached, shut down the government and as a result they took the blame, Clinton was re-elected. And that's politics! I only mention President Clinton's 1996 mid-term because it seems to match the closest with this last mid-term election cycle, except for one big fact, unemployment was at 5.9%.  

What does the research show?  

Despite the Republicans win of the House majority it  was not  a desire to return to Republican policies. Most polled rejected the narrative of the Republicans; that the American public rebelled against the liberal-mined over reaching of  Obama Administration. The Results showed that Americans were not aligning themselves with the Republicans , but rather were stating their disapproval for Washington.  Furthermore, since Democrats controlled most of the seats they would suffer more under that disappointment. Voters did support Democrats idea of tackling the deficit.  Fifty-one percent [51%] wanted to see an end to Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The voters believed that ending those tax cuts would address the deficit concerns. Thirty-nine percent [39%] supported the Republican's plan to cut $100 million from domestic spending, raise retirement age, and cancel unspent stimulus aid. 

The overwhelming  concern was the economy and the attention given to the economy. Lack of an economic vision and direction from the President and Congress created more anxiety as voters headed to the polls in November.   The health-care battle that ensued lead to the partisan politics that upset voters even more. The true desire of voters was to end the obstruction and a call for more bipartisanship.


I think that when the voters were unable to figure out who was responsible for the country not moving in the right direction; lead to the old adage, "When in doubt, vote them out."