Motanul Incaltat

Just another weblog

Apropo de suspendarea Presedintelui…

La noi Constitutia prevede acest lucru prin art. 95, iar. al. 3 precizeaza  ca „daca propunerea de suspendare este aprobata, in cel mult 30 de zile se organizeaza un referendum pentru demiterea Presedintelui”. Art. 96 se refera la punerea sub acuzare.

Americanii au asa numita procedura de impeachment, care in traducere ar insemna punere sub acuzare. Ideea e urmatoarea: Camera Inferioara – Camera Reprezentantilor – aduce acuzatiile oficialului respectiv iar Camera Superioara – Senatul – conduce procesul. Condamnarea se face cu o majoritate de doua treimi. Asta inseamna, in primul rand, demiterea din functie, dupa care poate urma un proces in instanta, judecata implica in SUA Curtea de juri. Procedura de impeachment se aplica in cazurile de „Tradare, Mita, sau alte Inalte Crime si Infractiuni”:

President Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

„At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that „The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.”

Doar doi Presedinti ai US, ambii din partea Partidului Democrat, au fost supusi acestei proceduri de impeachment – Andrew Johnson si Bill Clintonaici si aici – ambii fiind achitati.

Dar interesant mi s-a parut ce s-a intamplat in cazul lui Andrew Johnson. A fost vorba de incalcari ale Tenure of Office Act. Ati ghicit: comportament dictatorial!!

In Camera Reprezentantilor rezultatul votului a fost de 126 la 47 in favoarea rezolutiei de punere sub acuzare!! In Senat, aici e tare de tot, 35 de senatori au votat „vinovat” si 19 senatori  senatori au votat „nevinovat”. Cu toate acestea nu s-a indeplinit majoritatea de doua treimi si, drept consecinta, a trebuit sa fie achitat. Un vot a lipsit!!!!

Deci el a incalcat legea, dar nu a fost indeplinita majoritatea de doua treimi, la un vot diferenta, lucru care l-a salvat!!

In cazul lui Obama, chiar daca unii il considera comunist, cred ca nu e nicio sansa ca procedura de impeachment sa aiba succes: Senatul are o majoritate Democrata (cei doi independenti fiind cu Democratii). Oricum, Republicanii, chiar impreuna cu cei doi independenti, nu pot forma o majoritate, cu atat mai putin una de doua treimi. Din punct de vedere politic, trebuie sa recunoastem ca Obama se afla pe o pozitie foarte tare, o pozitie ce-i confera o mare putere.

De remarcat de ce putere mare se bucura Presedintele US: chiar si intr-o situatie in care Senatul i-ar fi defavorabil, cum a fost in cazul Presedintelui Andrew Johnson cand au votat majoritar „vinovat”, totusi daca nu se indeplineste majoritatea de doua treimi, si in cazul lui doar un vot a lipsit, atunci trebuie sa fie achitat.

februarie 16, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 94 comentarii

Bunastare pentru regine cu Cadillac

„We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (subl. mea)

Preamble to the United States Constitution

Mi-au atras atentia doua articole din The New York Times, din Pagina de Opinii, primul semnat de Paul Krugman si al doilea semnat de Andrew Rosenthal, pe care vi le supun atentiei Dvs.:

Iata ce ne spune Dl. Krugman:

Populism, Republican Style

Se arata ca:

„The recent speech by Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s governor, has drawn a fair bit of attention. Conservatives would have you believe that it marks the start of real GOP reform; but the reality, as Andy Rosenthal says, is that Jindal wants to change the jingle in the commercial without changing the product.

And if you want a clear demonstration of that point, compare Jindal’s words and deeds. Here’s what he just said:

We must not be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive. We are the party whose ideas will help the middle class, and help more folks join the middle class. We are a populist party and need to make that clear.

And here’s what he recently did:

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) recently rolled out a plan to replace his state’s personal income and corporate taxes with an increased sales tax. Such a move would shift taxes from the rich to the poor, who are disproportionately hit by the sales tax.

According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Jindal’s plan will raise taxes on the bottom 80 percent of Louisianians, while cutting them for the richest 1 percent:

– The bottom 80 percent of Louisianans in the income distribution would see a tax increase from repealing the personal and corporate income taxes and replacing them with a higher sales tax.

– The poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, those with an average income of $12,000, would see an average tax increase of $395, or 3.4 percent of their income, if no low income tax relief mechanism is offered.

– The middle 20 percent, those with an average income of $43,000, would see an average tax increase of $534, or 1.2 percent of their income.

– The largest beneficiaries of the tax proposal would be the top 1 percent—a group with an average income
of well over $1 million. Louisianans in the top 1 percent would see an average tax cut of $25,423, or 2.3 percent of their income under the plan described above.

I guess there is some innovation here: finally, Republicans have stopped being the party that only want tax cuts, and have started becoming the party that wants to cut taxes for the rich while raising them on ordinary families. Populism!”

In acest articol e vorba de guvernatorul republican de Louisiana, Dl. Bobby Jindal, care iata ce spune (incerc sa traduc):

„Nu trebuie sa fim partidul (republican, n.m) care pur si simplu protejeaza binele celor care sunt in stare sa-si tina jucariile. Ci trebuie sa fim partidul care sa arate tuturor americanilor cum pot prospera. Suntem partidul a carui idei vor ajuta clasa mijlocie si pe cat mai multi oameni sa intre in randurile clasei mijlocii. Suntem un partid populist si trebuie sa facem clar acest lucru.”

English: Governor Bobby Jindal at the Republic...

English: Governor Bobby Jindal at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Planul lui Jindal este sa creasca taxele pentru 80% din locuitorii statului Louisiana si, in schimb, sa taie taxele pentru 1% din locuitori, cei cu venituri de peste $1 milion, deci cei mai bogati!!

– Cei cu cele mai mici venituri, $12.000, vor suporta o crestere a taxelor de 3,4%, adica $395;

– Cei cu venitul mediu de $43.000 vor suporta o crestere a taxelor de 1,2%, asta insemnand $534;

– In schimb cei cu venituri de peste $1.000.000, vor avea parte de taieri de taxe de $25.423, adica de 2,3%.

Dl. Krugman trage concluzia ca e vorba de populism. Dar eu sunt tare curios ce ar spune cineva de oriunde de pe Pamantul acesta despre masura asta…

Daca e asa cum a spus Dl. Jindal si anume ca vrea ca sa ajute clasa mijlocie si toti americanii sa prospere, masura avuta in vedere de domnia sa nu are, economic vorbind, decat o singura logica. Si anume: daca lasi mai multe venituri celor bogati, cu forta economica si financiara mare, in schimb maresti taxele la cei saraci si la cei cu venituri medii, pentru ca planul sa reuseasca trebuie ca cei bogati sa inceapa sa se apuce sa faca investitii si sa creeze locuri de munca. Lor nu li s-a micsorat veniturile, dimpotriva! Deci au de unde investii, raspunzand chemarii partidului de a face ca tot americanul sa prospere, nu numai „cei care isi pot tine jucariile”. Dar ca si cei saraci sa-si poata cumpara „jucarii” trebuie ca si salariile sa inceapa sa fie motivante, bune tocmai ca sa fie cat mai multi care sa intre in randurile clasei mijlocii. In caz contrar, planul ramane fara efect: nu face decat sa mareasca niste taxe la 80% dintre louisinieni si celor bogati sa le scada din taxe. Si cu asta ce-am facut? Pai, daca lucrurile stau asa, raman asa, e clar ca se reduce puterea de cumparare la 80% din populatia statului Louisiana.

Dar sa vedem ce spune si Dl. Andrew Rosenthal:

G.O.P. Rebranding

„There is no shortage of people in the Republican Party who think the message voters sent in November was that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan weren’t conservative enough.

In Kentucky, USA Today reports, Tea Party groups are hoping to oust Senator Mitch McConnell, because he has only paid “lip service” to the causes of the right wing. It’s hard to imagine anyone more dedicated to those causes than Mr. McConnell, who infamously declared at the start of President Obama’s first term that his top priority would be denying him a second one.

But there also are an increasing number of influential Republicans who at least sound like they are trying to drag their party back from the edge.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, whose name is often mentioned as a future presidential candidate, had a very blunt message for the Republican National Committee at its winter meeting this week. “We must stop being the stupid party,” he said. “I’m serious. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.”

He said the G.O.P. is guilty of “insulting the intelligence of voters” and has spent too much time “dumbing down” its ideas. “We must reject the notion that demography is destiny, the pathetic and simplistic notion that skin pigmentation dictates voter behavior,” he said. He added that “the first step in getting voters to like you is to demonstrate that you like them.”

It seemed like an extraordinary acknowledgment of what the polls showed in November, which was that minority voters — including a large percentage of Hispanic voters — overwhelmingly rejected the Republicans’ candidates and policies.

But the rest of Mr. Jindal’s remarks suggested that he wants to change the jingle on the commercial rather than the product itself.

“As I indicated before, I am not one of those who believe we should moderate, equivocate, or otherwise abandon our principles,” he said. “This badly disappoints many of the liberals in the national media of course. For them, real change means supporting abortion on demand without apology; abandoning traditional marriage between one man and one woman; embracing government growth as the key to American success; agreeing to higher taxes every year to pay for government expansion; and endorsing the enlightened policies of European socialism.”
That, he said, “is what real change looks like to the New York Times editorial board.”

I appreciate the product placement, but that’s a rather extreme caricature of our positions. (Yes, we support same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t mean we want to “abandon traditional marriage.” We think they can co-exist.)

Another leading Republican political figure (at least in his own mind), Newt Gingrich, told the same Republican gathering: “I am for 100 percent of the American people believing that they have a party that cares about their future. I would like to say to every consultant in this party, if you think you can target less than 100 percent, you’re not going to get any more business.”

Mr. Gingrich was referring to Mr. Romney’s infamous 47 percent comment, but, just like Mr. Jindal, he didn’t seem to be calling for a change in policy so much as a change in tone. Lawmakers, he said, should stop complaining about Mr. Obama’s agenda and practice “cheerful persistence.”

“We need to be the happy party,” he said.

Mr. Jindal and Mr. Gingrich both seem to assume that those who oppose the Republican Party don’t object to Republican programs and goals. They just don’t understand the G.O.P. message. If that’s not “insulting the intelligence of voters” (as Mr. Jindal put it), I don’t know what is.”

Ideea de rebrenduire a GOP e foarte buna. Ea este logica din punct de vedere politic. Interesant este ca, spre deosebire de Tea Party care doreste excluderea Dl. Senator Mitch McConnell pentru „lip service” aduse cauzei de dreapta („lip service”… aha!), Dl. Jindal, mentionat adesea ca viitor candidat la alegerile prezidentiale, are o alta pozitie:

“We must stop being the stupid party,” he said. “I’m serious. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.”

Domnia sa afirma ca e timpul „sa nu mai fim un partid prost” si ca „Partidul Republican trebuie sa inceapa sa vorbeasca precum adultii”!! Dupa aceea spune ca nu e dintre cei care cred ca „trebuie sa fim moderati, sa vorbim in mod echivoc, cu alte cuvinte sa ne abandonam principiile” pentru ca tocmai asta (adica faptul ca nu-si abandoneaza principiile, etc) „dezamageste pe multi liberali (democrati) din presa nationala pentru care marea schimbare inseamna casatoria intre persoane de acelasi sex, abandonarea casatoriei traditionale dintre un barbat si o femeie, imbratiseaza cresterea rolului guvernului ca o cheie pentru succesul American, sunt de acord cu mariri de taxe in fiecare an pentru expansiunea guvernamentala ( 😉 look who’s talking about…, n.m. ) si aproba politicile luminate ale socialismului European„. Apoi spune: „acestea sunt schimbarile reale ale board-ului editorial de la The New York Times” (Presa e de vina!! Nu va suna cunoscut? 😀 ). Andrew Rosenthal il contrazice si spune ca ” sustinem casatoriile intre cei de acelasi sex dar nu vrem sa abandonam casatoriile traditionale. Credem ca acestea doua pot coexista”.  In final Andrew Rosethal spune: „Dl. Jindal si Dl. Gingrich par sa presupuna faptul ca cei care se opun Partidului Republican nu au nicio obiectie asupra programelor si asupra scopurilor Republicane. Ci pur si simplu nu inteleg mesajul GOP. Daca asta nu inseamna „a insulta inteligenta celor care voteaza” (cum spune Dl. Jindal), nu stiu ce poate insemna”.

Bineinteles, recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor. E foarte interesant de vazut cum se duce lupta intre Stanga si Dreapta peste Ocean, in SUA…

Interesant este ca Dl. Jindal critica cresterea rolului guvernului, expansiunea guvernamentala dar doreste prosperitate pentru toti americanii, vrea ca sa ajunga cat mai multi americani in randurile clasei mijlocii. Dupa parerea mea, Dreapta nu a gasit o solutie potrivita pentru un astfel de scop si probabil ca din aceasta cauza spune ca GOP e un partid populist. Pentru a avea cat mai multi americani in randul clasei mijlocii trebuie pus accent pe invatamantul public accesibil majoritatii americanilor, scolile private fiind scumpe. Pe de alta parte, cei bogati traiesc in urmatoarea dilema: vor sa fie si mai bogati fara sa faca investitii. Or, lucrul asta nu e posibil. Trebuie investit, inclusiv in factorul uman, daca doresti ca toti americanii s-o duca mai bine. Bineinteles, nu-i poti forta pe cei bogati sa investeasca. Insa ei vad asta, investitia, ca si cum ar saraci pentru ca dau din banul lor. Dar, exista, desigur, si acest risc…


Cuvintele din titlul acestei postari nu-mi apartin. Acestea sunt, dupa cum ne asigura Dl. Krugman, ale lui Ronald Reagan!

Off Topic

Romania Libera

Un adolescent a fost împuşcat în cap lângă o şcoală din Atlanta

februarie 1, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 43 comentarii

Chestiuni legate de religie in SUA. Implicatiile politice

Un deosebit de interesant articol pe care l-am citit in The Telegraph si pe care vi-l propun si Dvs.:

US ‘no longer has a Protestant majority’

Iata ce se arata printre altele:

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

„The United States does not have a Protestant majority for the first time since being founded by the Puritans as ever-growing numbers of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, according to a new study.

The country is now only 48 per cent Protestant, with one in five of the population saying they no longer adhere to any religion or denomination, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

However, the study by the Washington-based thinktank found America still remains a deeply religious country and that church attendance appears to have risen in the last five years.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, 2008 US presidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of the 33 million people with no religious affiliation, two-thirds said they still believed in God even if they no longer identified with any religious organisation.

Only around six per cent of Americans described themselves as atheist or agnostic, a segment of the population that has grown only marginally in the last five years. […]

The decline of Protestant dominance is already evident at the highest levels of American government. Barack Obama is the only Protestant candidate on either major party ticket in this election, as Mitt Romney is a Mormon and both vice-presidential candidates are Catholics.

None of the nine justices on the US Supreme Court are Protestant – six are Catholic and three are Jewish.

The trend may also have long-term political implications as people with no religious affiliation were found to overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party.

 Pew’s report suggested that unaffiliated voters could become as important to the Democrats’ political base as Christian Evangelicals currently are to the Republicans.” (subl. mea)

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a intregului articol.

Articolul arata ca SUA nu mai are o majoritate protestanta, prima data de la infiintarea sa de catre Puritani si ca a crescut numarul de americani care declara ca nu sunt afiliati din punct de vedere religios (ca nu au o anumita religie). Protestantii sunt acum in procent de 48% si unul din cinci americani spun ca nu mai adera la nicio religie sau confesiune, desi America ramane o tara profund religioasa, prezenta bisericii crescand in ultimii cinci ani.

33 de milioane de oameni care nu sunt afiliati religios, doar 6% (13 milioane) spun ca sunt ateisti sau agnostici, un segment de populatie care a crescut doar marginal in ultimii 5 ani. Din acestia (46 de milioane de oameni) doua treimi spun ca, totusi, cred in Dumnezeu, chiar daca nu se mai identifica cu nicio organizatie religioasa.

Toate aceste lucruri capata implicatii politice… Barack Obama este singurul protestant care candideaza, din toate marile partide, Mitt Romney este mormon, iar ambii candidati la functia de vicepresedinte sunt catolici. Niciunul din cei noua membri ai Curtii Supreme a US nu sunt protestanti: 6 sunt catolici si trei sunt evrei.

Aceasta tendinta poate avea implicatii politice pe termen lung: cei care nu au nicio afiliere religioasa se vor gasi, intr-un mod coplesitor, printre suporterii Partidului Democrat. Studiul arata ca votantii neafiliati religios ar putea deveni un suport (baza) politic important al democratilor, precum sunt acum Crestinii Evanghelici pentru republicani.

Iata ce transformari a suferit si sufera America…

octombrie 10, 2012 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Lasă un comentariu