Kathleen's Sharebook 

http://www. thepeoplehavespoken. org/id9. html

Stimulus is Federalist coup to subvert State and local government
This is how it's done - Borrowers are the servants to lenders.


ALL governmental entities whether State or local are corporations. MOST of them are bankrupt. Their greed has led to their poverty, and they should go broke and a new corporation formed to take their place. If they have spent or foolishly invested the "entitlement" funds of government retirees, and they loose their retirements - too bad.


There is no parity or equity in government employees being able to retire at a much earlier age than those in the private sector. What no one is willing to tell you is that 60% of State and Local government revenues go to retirements (these are cleverly called "deferred wages" in an attempt to assure that they are paid through coerced taxation.


What no one is willing to tell you is that 100% of the unconstitutional income tax on wages goes to pay the interest on the national debt, and that most of that goes to the international banksters.


Government excesses are living proof that "Greed leads to Poverty" - deal with it - don't ask those who have supported you with burdensome taxes to pack you, while you live off the dole.


Get a job - a real job - let's see if you can be productive, or are you just worthless eaters??

Original Article at:
http://www. msnbc. msn. com/id/29219497/

States and cities in scramble for stimulus cash.


Local officials jockey for upper hand in deciding how money will be spent

By Monica Davey
Updated 1:53 a.m. PT, Mon., Feb.
16, 2009

Well before President Obama’s stimulus package completed its tortuous path through Congress last week, state and local officials facing multimillion-dollar budget deficits, crumbling infrastructure and the prospect of massive reductions in services were already jockeying for the upper hand in deciding how the money should be spent.


In Missouri, the Department of Transportation says that within 180 days of Mr. Obama’s signing the legislation it is prepared to begin 34 transportation projects, costing $510 million and with the promise of 14,000 jobs.


Echoing the thoughts of many political leaders across the country, Mayor Frank C. Ortis of Pembroke Pines, Fla., says simply, “We have a wish list.” And high on that list is money to repair aging sewer pipes in his city of 150,000.

Story continues below advertisement your ad here

When Mr. Obama signs the stimulus bill in Denver on Tuesday, it will release the biggest influx of federal dollars since the days of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society program. But it also is expected to set off a multitude of political battles across the map: between governors and legislatures, state capitols and city halls, and even between neighboring municipalities.


Because the effectiveness of any stimulus plan depends on the money being quickly spent, whether state and local governments can work through the rules and resolve any disputes will have a large impact on the success Mr. Obama’s plan has in lifting the economy.


Along with the money, there are complex rules to the sprawling, $787 billion federal plan that local politicians from governors to small-town mayors say they are only now beginning to grasp. And while states will have direct say on the use of much of the money — especially on infrastructure projects like roads and bridges — many spending decisions will still rest with officials hundreds of miles away in Washington.


“Still, within the parameters given, there are a lot of policy choices and decisions states and localities have to make,” said Scott D. Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers.


Mr. Pattison said he has faced a barrage of questions in recent days from state budget officials on matters like how much discretion states will have, how the money will be transferred and how it must be tracked.


“This is all rather daunting,” he said. “It’s a lot of money, and this is happening fast.
”

While it offers a patchwork of spending, the plan also provides battlegrounds for untold intrastate political fights.


“There is a tension that’s happening between mayors and governors across the country now about who is going to receive what dollar amounts and for what purposes,” said Mayor Michael D. Bissonnette of Chicopee, Mass., (population 54,000).


Mr. Bissonnette said that even before the legislation made its way for an official vote in Congress last week, the political pressure was mounting in his region of Western Massachusetts. A council of mayors and other leaders there was outraged, he said, to learn that one state proposal would send millions to the Massachusetts Turnpike rather than what he considers a backlog of local road and bridge projects.


More from NYTimes. com
Obama Is Said to Drop Plan for ‘Car Czar’
U.S.
to Compare Treatments for Illnesses
Obama Confronts a Choice on Copters
Burris Defends His Evolving Description of Talks
External links

Experts said the authorities in the states will probably have great discretion when it comes to billions of dollars for a broad range of state needs, including roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. And states also will have considerable say in how billions are spent on Medicaid and for education.


The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials says the states have already identified 5,000 so-called “ready to go” transportation projects that could begin within a couple of months.


“We have far more in the way of projects that are ready to go than we have money to fund them,” Kevin A. Elsenheimer, a Republican state representative and the house minority leader in Michigan, said. “And it’s naïve to expect that politics will not be part of the process.
”

Officials expect that politics will not be limited to the lawmakers. Spending decisions on education could pit urban school districts against suburban or rural ones; how billions are dispensed for energy could come down to how advanced, or not, one state might be when it comes to wind energy development; and in many cases, it will come down to whether extra money will be spent to save the job of a firefighter or a teacher.


Some state legislators said they feared that governors might try to dictate where the money goes, although in most states lawmakers would ultimately need to approve any spending. And clashes are already brewing over broad philosophical differences, particularly in state capitals with leadership divided along party lines.


For example, some governors said they opposed the notion that stimulus money be used to plug budget deficits while others said that might be needed.

Story continues below advertisement your ad here

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is among the most ardent opponents of the stimulus package, describing it as pork-barrel spending and bad policy and vowing — to the anger and chagrin of the Democratic members of the state’s Congressional delegation — not to take any of the money from Washington.


“For every job the bill creates, American taxpayers will spend $223,000” Mr. Sanford wrote in an opinion article in The State newspaper on Sunday. “If we add the cost of this bill to the previous efforts of the federal government to deal with the financial crisis, the American taxpayer is on the hook for $9.7 trillion.
”

He went on to write, “If the stimulus bill were a country, it would be the 15th-largest country in the world.
”

Governors and states hungering for the money will find themselves competing against other states. For example, states without enough eligible “shovel-ready” construction projects might have to pass up some money, which could then be granted to other states, said Michael Bird, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures.


There is also a flush of new money for Medicaid spending — $87 billion — but that, too, comes with strings attached.


In Minnesota, for instance, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, is expected to revise his budget proposal, which had suggested reducing the number of residents eligible for state health care programs as a way to close a deficit. But such cuts now could jeopardize any extra financing for Medicaid under the stimulus plan, because the bill penalizes states that change their Medicaid eligibility to save money.


Everywhere, state leaders are busily checking, searching through more than 1,000 pages in the federal bill, to see how their unique circumstances might be helped or harmed.


In some cases, the package has put some proposed state budgets for next year on hold until lawmakers can see how things play out, and several states plan to rewrite parts of their budgets to secure more federal dollars.
###############

Subject: RE: Stimulus is Federalist coup to subvert State and local gover


Thank you very much.. I have a lot of bulletins archived at www. aristocutionor. com.. ----- (mouse over) Contents, (click on) aristocutionor bulletins.. I just like to try to keep the credits straight.. As hard as I try, I know that some of the bulletins posted probably inherited such an error.. Also, there have been reports that for some reason the posting trail is missing some..

As you may know, I was in the forefront of the Sovereignty "Resolutions" and started with talking about the States' right to secede - the USA, CORP being in breach of contract with the terms of statehood..

I have been in the forefront of States' Rights for over 30 years (Sagebrush Rebellion) and never thought I'd live to see the day that the States woke up to the reality of a Federalist coup in progress.. I am please to see a positive step toward remaining sovereign nation states that are in union..

It took a while for the reality to sink in, but it did, and is sinking into more States and will soon, of economic necessity, be forced to choose sovereignty, for their own survival, and that of its Counties..

That's where the Sheriff comes in, and where the criminal coup of the banksters to pull of Federalism (turns the order of government upside-down)..

The Sheriff is a non-political elected office.. The Sheriff is the representative of the people that elected him/her.. I would like to see a serious effort put forth to encourage existing Sheriffs to consider that, in fact, no federal "law" has jurisdiction in any County..

I would like to see the Sheriffs put up a website with all the "laws" that the State wishes the County to abide by, and all the "laws" that the Feds wish the County to abide by; and let the residents of the County vote on which ones they want the Sheriff to enforce.. Only resident, registered voters, can vote (no party affiliation) (requires 2/3 majority vote, and total votes must be 2/3 of the registered voters; otherwise the "law" is not enforced..

Point is, the Office of Sheriff brings the issues down to the local level where it is suppose to be, with We the People..

I don't pretend to be some kind of a strategist, but, I can tell you of a certainty that this Federalist coup can and must come to a stop.. The County Sheriff is and has the specific power to do just that.. And, with my advocacy for the laws to be enforced are voted on, the organic common law "Constitution for the united states of America" is what is properly governing according to the proper Order of Government - government according to the Constitution..

Michael Bradnarik (teaches the Constitution) is considering running for Sheriff in a County in Texas.. I think there should be a grass roots effort to either, be assured that the Sheriff is fulfilling the role and Oath as the Citizens' representative, or elect one that will.. Again, the vote-on-the-laws deal keeps everything above board, and remains the will of the people as they are the sovereigns, and that by God, is the way it's suppose to be in the united states of America..

So, any help in the States' Rights (sovereignty) and County Rights(supreme right over which "laws" are enforced) is much appreciated.. My other area of endeavor is corporations.. They should not have the rights and privileges of living humans, and they should in accordance with the law, have a life-span of not more than n# of years.. I have suggest 50, and 80.. (that's another topic - economics)..

In the realm of The Rule of Law, the County is the line in the sand.. This can be done.. It must be done.. Counties are small enough demographically, and the local media must by license report local news, and if people vote (on-line) for which "laws" are enforced, the issues remain in the control of the Sovereign Individuals.. That's why there are Counties..


Thanks for all your efforts - we're all trying to make a positive difference and it's good to see people finally settling down to do just that.. The best part about the Office of Sheriff is that it non-political.. Either a "law" is enforced or it isn't - the will of We the People is what is enforced..

-aristo- Mike
##########################

Thanks for permission to share.. I forward to friends and see if we can get some support in exposing the federalist coup at the County level..
Some very hard working ladies actually should take the credit for pushing snow ball that has become the avalanche sovereignty movement..

That's what's needed again directed at the County level.. There are only about 3,000 Counties in the States.. Definitely doable with the likes of the ladies that did the really hard work of getting a draft Sovereignty Resolution to all 50 States' Legislatures..

That's why I would like to see people get copies of Sheriff Mack's book - it's a starting point.. We should think out how to organize a concerted effort.. I'm not the best person for that - I'm working 10+ hour days.. It is too important to every Citizen in every State not to put forth a sustained effort.. Maybe Sheriff Mack would help.. He can't do it alone - he has to be cloned so to speak..

Maybe the Sheriffs Associations would help.. I don't believe the Sheriffs are particularly pleased to be having the Feds cram things down their throats.. We will have to support good Sheriffs and replace weak ones.. We will have to help Sheriffs to have budgets that do not have any federal funds involved - it is a conflict of interest.. We will have to support Sheriffs as the people realize that they are who actually decide which "laws" are enforced..

#######################