League of Women Voters Legislative Forum for Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Hopkins September 29th at Minnetonka City Hall.
House- 42B
Ray Daniels D
Jenifer Loon R
Senate SD42
Ron Case D
David Hann R
House 42A
Maria Rudd D
Kirk Stenstrud R
More Deception the “Minnesota’s Business Tax Rate Too High” Myth: Republicans Hann, Loon and Stensrud mislead at League of Women Voters Forum
It’s hard to fathom that all three of them would mislead the public. They argued the same thing Pawlenty has been saying for two terms as Governor. We are a high tax state in general, for personal taxes and business taxes that harm businesses from thriving here.
Here’s how the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains it:
Government and independent researchers have long pointed out that the top statutory corporate tax rate is an incomplete measure at best of the burden of corporate taxes. It does not take into account the generous depreciation rules, exemptions, deductions, and credits (some of which are sometimes termed "loopholes") that corporations may be eligible for.
Not one of the Republican candidates mentioned these facts. But, Ray Daniels did point out that what matters ultimately is not the tax rate, but the final tax bill.
http://www.mn2020.org/
According to a new article in MinnPost Minnesota stacks up pretty good amongst its competitors.
“Still, economists do compare states by this measure because it reflects the actual taxes paid after businesses took advantage of various deductions and opportunities to pass expenses along to customers. The Ernst & Young report calls it the "total effective business tax rate."
Here too, Minnesota stacks up favorably. Its total effective business tax rate for 2009 was 4.3 percent. That compares with 8.2 percent for North Dakota, 4.9 percent for South Dakota and 4.6 percent each for Iowa and Wisconsin. The national rate was 4.7 percent.
MN Business Tax rate 4.3 percent. That compares w/ 8.2% for North Dakota, 4.9% for South Dakota & 4.6 % Iowa & Wisconsin. The national rate 4.7%
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2010/08/25/20854/how_does_minnesota_stack_up_in_business_taxation_pretty_well_it_turns_out
Tax Foundation 2010
Business Tax Climate Index
Minnesota 4.44
South Dakota 7.42
North Dakota 5.04
Wisconsin 4.54
Iowa 4.23
Illinois 5.01
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf
Minnesota has the eleventh most progressive (or least regressive) state and local tax system in the nation according to MN2020.
http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B85F249A8-AF2F-465C-B05E-7E8C946BA9A7%7D&DE
Hann, Stensrud and Loon claim Minnesota losing small businesses to our neighboring states because of high taxes, bad business climate? Is this just deception on their part?
According to Susan Schmickle of Minnpost the problem isn't business taxes it's property taxes. The next burden on businesses are sales taxes. The most confusing variant that goes into the tax evaluation are things like education, services like police and fire protection, water and sewer infrastructure, transportation amenities, etc. How much do businesses pay in state and local taxes for every dollar’s worth of government services they receive, Schmickle asks.
"The Ernst & Young report calls it the "total effective business tax rate."
Here too, Minnesota stacks up favorably. Its total effective business tax rate for 2009 was 4.3 percent. That compares with 8.2 percent for North Dakota, 4.9 percent for South Dakota and 4.6 percent each for Iowa and Wisconsin. The national rate was 4.7 percent.
By this measure, Minnesota is 15th from the bottom state in business taxation."
One example is the often-cited data from the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. Its most recent ranking of states [PDF] counts Minnesota among the 10 states with the worst business tax climates. One factor in the foundation's decision to rank Minnesota 43rd among states was the state's individual income tax."
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2010/08/25/20854/how_does_minnesota_stack_up_in_business_taxation_pretty_well_it_turns_out
More Deception “School Choice” codeword of Republicans means no social equality, no government control, no sexual education.
Essentially they want to eliminate equality in the public school systems, social acceptance of GLBT, early education in safe sex. This is why David Hann supports vochures for private and religious schools, which would have the ability to turn down any student, and not follow the same educational programs as public schools, but still get public school funding. This is unconstitutional.
Hann signed their questionaire in 2002 to abide by their precepts: Edaction.org and Edwatch.org's mission is to eliminate what they call government programs:
Here are some of their precepts:
Accessible, nonpublic education without government interference is essential to a healthy education system. (that means they would turn down federal funding for schools because it would mean they would have to abide by federal programs.)
Good education is most importantly about acquiring knowledge and understanding, not about inculcating government-approved values and beliefs.
Early childhood care from birth to five is best determined by the child's parents. Establishing ideological and political child-outcomes and universal preschool is a dangerous expansion of government power over families.
Good education accurately teaches the political heritage of western civilization, including the Judeo-Christian worldview, as America's historical foundation.
. Early Childhood Professional Development - (HS p. 324)
Current - $496,000 Governor - $0 EdWatch - $0
EdWatch strongly agrees with and very much appreciates this cut from the governor's budget. This is the next step to licensing and unionizing childcare workers. There are big problems with the group certifying at least one of the early childhood degrees for which the TEACH program pays. The Child Development Associate credential was created and is certified by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The CDA requires use of NAEYC's radical Anti-Bias curriculum, which deals with topics that have absolutely nothing to do with closing the achievement gap - issues like gender anatomy and identity, gender roles, homosexuality, witchcraft, the alleged racism of the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving, etc. We see this as protecting children from the harms of government indoctrination, including in the controversial area of sex education. The governor should be thanked.
http://www.edwatch.org/
Deception: Hann, Stensrud and Loon say Minnesota isn’t competitive with other states. Where are they getting their information, from the MN Chamber of Commerce? Probably, because they recently conducted a survey of MN businesses and in an article in Twin Cities Bizjournal Sept 20th, the Chamber said local businesses lacked optimisim. They are worried about being able to compete because of high Health Care costs and taxes and government policy at the state and federal level.
Minnesota is ranked 8th among 50 states for business competitiveness by CNBC, but yet in a recent article Minnesota businesses profesed a lack of optimism. CNBC recently ranked 50 states for competiveness. Minnesota tied with Utah, 8th overall. Mass ranks 5th overall and their economy is great according to their Governor because of investments in education, health care and transportation. All are linked to business success.
www.bizjournals.com
In February of this year Moody’s lowered its outlook on Minnesota GO debt and credit outlook. As of Feb, Minnesota had a Aa1 rating. According to an article in Politics in Minnesota the problem is due to a “loss of budget reserves and heavy reliance on one-time measures which only solves temporary deficits” which is more a policy and leadership problem.
www.cnbc.com/id/37516043/
Hann, Stenrud and Loon beating the deception drum, making things look worse than they are, misinforming the public.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Erik Paulsen's Attack Ad on Meffert fails fact-check
Paulsen claims Jim supports a government control of health care
WRONG
Government Takeover? Not according to the Health Care Industry
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/174216
Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/
Paulsen says Meffert supports cuts to Medicare
WRONG
In reaction to the cost cuts the government is implementing insurers will cut seniors benefits in order not to lose profits.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/
Paulsen claims Meffert’s agenda kills jobs with taxes
WRONG
Moody's business analysists say the tax hit would not be too high for most small businesses. Even for those making over $250,000 the tax hit would be small
Erik Paulsen voted NO on HR5297 bill to create small business jobs
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-375
Paulsen is talking about not extending the tax cuts to the top 2% earners as a job killer.
Economists from Moody’s Analytics, in an analysis of Federal Reserve data going back to 1989, came to this conclusion, in a report released this week, that spending is far more impacted by the business cycle, such as the fluctuation of stock prices, than tax cuts.
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimates that the tax hit would not be too high for most small businesses. For one, the marginal tax increase impacts earnings, not revenue. A business would need to be clearing more than $250,000 a year after salaries and other costs in order to see a tax hit. And then, it would likely be small. “For the $250,000 to $500,000 a year bracket,” Baker notes, “the estimated tax hit is $700. That isn’t enough to hire anyone.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/97315/who-would-the-tax-increases-hurt
Paulsen claims Meffert supports reckless spending
WRONG
Economists say More Bang-for-the-Buck with Spending, because most tax-cuts are saved, not spent.
Spending versus tax cuts, by Paul Krugman: Jeff Frankel says what I wanted to say about what we know so far about the impact of the stimulus:
Martin Feldstein and others predicted that the tax-cut component of the 2009 fiscal stimulus package would have substantially less expansionary bang-for-the-buck than the spending component of the package, because much of the tax cut would be saved, as had been the case with the 2008 tax cut. (“Bang for the buck” in this case could be defined as demand stimulus divided by budget cost.) We knew this from Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis, or even from good old Keynesian multiplier theory.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/08/spending-versus-tax-cuts.html
Sunday, September 5, 2010
HACKS OF ANY POLITICAL ILK LOSE CREDIBILITY
What do we mean by calling them hacks?
They're simply out to destroy the reputations of any candidate who opposes their candidate by any unethical or dishonest means.
The Braublog Minnpost article URL is below.
We're not even going to mention their names, let's just say their reputations for skirting the line between fact and fiction proceeds them.
To the contrary, the AP piece picked up by MN Progressive, was FACT on.
Though it's not PHL's policy to pick on the children of politicians, of any political persuasion.
Minnpost is right, does any of this have to do with reducing our $6M deficit? No.
And to that fact, Tom Emmer is the last one of the three running to seriously address
the deficit with a budget everyone can examine.
The candidates themselves need to send a clear message to hacks spreading rumors on their behalf. STOP.
Our message to both these political hacks: your credibility is further damaged by passing off sloppy research as fact. One gets the idea that you can't win on policy so you just create scandals where none exist.
By stooping to such tactics, you defeat your own purpose, and actually make your party and your candidate look desperate.
http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2010/09/02/21119/why_ap_spiked_the_emmer_son_drinking_story_that_city_pages_ran
They're simply out to destroy the reputations of any candidate who opposes their candidate by any unethical or dishonest means.
The Braublog Minnpost article URL is below.
We're not even going to mention their names, let's just say their reputations for skirting the line between fact and fiction proceeds them.
To the contrary, the AP piece picked up by MN Progressive, was FACT on.
Though it's not PHL's policy to pick on the children of politicians, of any political persuasion.
Minnpost is right, does any of this have to do with reducing our $6M deficit? No.
And to that fact, Tom Emmer is the last one of the three running to seriously address
the deficit with a budget everyone can examine.
The candidates themselves need to send a clear message to hacks spreading rumors on their behalf. STOP.
Our message to both these political hacks: your credibility is further damaged by passing off sloppy research as fact. One gets the idea that you can't win on policy so you just create scandals where none exist.
By stooping to such tactics, you defeat your own purpose, and actually make your party and your candidate look desperate.
http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2010/09/02/21119/why_ap_spiked_the_emmer_son_drinking_story_that_city_pages_ran
Friday, July 2, 2010
Benefits of Wall Street Reform
THE BENEFITS OF WALL STREET REFORM
Our economic growth and prosperity depend on a strong, robust financial sector, but we’ve seen what happens when there’s inadequate oversight and insufficient transparency on Wall Street. We can’t build a strong economy in America in the long run without ending this status quo and laying a new foundation for growth and prosperity.
Wall Street reform doesn’t just help create a more stable economy; it would actually improve the lives of everyday American families. Here are five benefits that everyone should know:
1 Reform forces credit card and mortgage companies to play by the rules. No more hidden fees or pages of fine print.
2 Families who are hoping to buy a home or pay for college are put on a level playing field with lenders. Reform ensures they’ll get the information they need presented clearly and concisely, so they can make good decisions. The same goes for small businesses and community banks that play fair and deserve to see their businesses grow.
3 The legislation cracks down on predatory lenders looking to mislead people into taking on irresponsible debt.
4 Wall Street reform establishes an independent agency—the Consumer Financial Protection Agency—with one job: to protect consumers and enforce the new consumer financial protections, which would be the strongest ever enacted.
5 Finally, American taxpayers will never again be asked to bail out the big banks that are "too big to fail." Let’s be absolutely clear about this, no matter what our opponents in Congress say.
BarackObama.com/WallStreetReform
Our economic growth and prosperity depend on a strong, robust financial sector, but we’ve seen what happens when there’s inadequate oversight and insufficient transparency on Wall Street. We can’t build a strong economy in America in the long run without ending this status quo and laying a new foundation for growth and prosperity.
Wall Street reform doesn’t just help create a more stable economy; it would actually improve the lives of everyday American families. Here are five benefits that everyone should know:
1 Reform forces credit card and mortgage companies to play by the rules. No more hidden fees or pages of fine print.
2 Families who are hoping to buy a home or pay for college are put on a level playing field with lenders. Reform ensures they’ll get the information they need presented clearly and concisely, so they can make good decisions. The same goes for small businesses and community banks that play fair and deserve to see their businesses grow.
3 The legislation cracks down on predatory lenders looking to mislead people into taking on irresponsible debt.
4 Wall Street reform establishes an independent agency—the Consumer Financial Protection Agency—with one job: to protect consumers and enforce the new consumer financial protections, which would be the strongest ever enacted.
5 Finally, American taxpayers will never again be asked to bail out the big banks that are "too big to fail." Let’s be absolutely clear about this, no matter what our opponents in Congress say.
BarackObama.com/WallStreetReform
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Backyard Chicken Farming in Suburban Eden Prairie: A Bad Idea
Backyard chicken ban gains support
Feb 05, 2010
The following letter was submitted to the Press by the Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center:As the country’s largest coalition of animal sanctuaries involved in the direct care of unwanted chickens, we are writing to you with our recommendations regarding the recent trend in backyard chicken-keeping.
As the popularity of raising backyard flocks has grown, our shelters have become inundated with calls to take in unwanted chickens. In addition, we understand many communities are now besieged with requests to legally regulate the keeping of backyard flocks.
Recognizing the importance of this issue, we have crafted the accompanying Position Statement.
Backyard chicken-keeping by amateurs raises many serious concerns regarding both the welfare of the birds and the community. Moreover, it raises serious concerns about ordinance enforcement issues and the burden placed on already overwhelmed local shelters when birds are abandoned, seized or surrendered.
Further, it must be pointed out that hatcheries marketing chickens for backyard flocks use cruel factory farm methods which include overcrowding, de-beaking, and the shipment of day-old chicks by mail – a process that subjects them to temperature extremes, injury and sustenance deprivation.
Unmarketable male chicks are often included as living packing material – leading to their eventual abandonment or surrender to local shelters.For all of these reasons, we respectfully urge you to read and consider the issues raised in the attached position statement on the keeping of chickens.
We urge you to consider the reasons we give for encouraging your municipality to resist becoming zoned for chicken-keeping.
If zoning is already in place, we urge your municipality to establish and enforce strict requirements designed to protect both the birds and your community from serious problems that will, quite predictably, otherwise result.Sincerely,Miriam Jones, spokesperson for the CoalitionEastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center Collective Position Statement on Backyard PoultryBACKGROUNDIn the past year, shelters and sanctuaries in urban and suburban areas have witnessed a dramatic increase in the intake of chickens, particularly roosters. Hatcheries producing day-old chicks for shipment to feed stores and individuals are backlogged with orders.
The desire to raise poultry can be linked to organic backyard farming as well as a desire to have direct access to food (eggs and, in some cases, meat).As a coalition of animal sanctuaries interested in the welfare of hens and roosters, we have created this position statement on the keeping and raising of chickens.
All of us have been inundated with calls to take in hens and roosters who are a) no longer wanted; b) not the correct sex, or c) not legally permissible. As organizations with limited resources and space, it is no longer feasible to take in even a small percentage of these unwanted animals. Even with placement assistance, most of these chickens, particularly roosters, do not find permanent placement.
This leaves municipal dog and cat shelters the task of taking in, housing, feeding, caring for and inevitably killing healthy, adoptable chickens.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN BACKYARD FLOCKS
Hatcheries are like puppy mills: When animals are reduced to commodities, their best interests are pushed aside in favor of profit. Hatcheries that produce chicks for backyard flocks treat chickens and their offspring in much the same way puppy mills treat breeding dogs and their puppies. There are no legal requirements dictating how breeding hens and roosters are housed, meaning they may be crammed into small cages or sheds without outdoor access.Shipping day-old chicks is cruel: Most chickens purchased are bought from hatcheries or feed stores (these chicks originate from hatcheries). Hatcheries ship day-old birds through the postal service without any legal oversight. Young chickens are deprived of food and water for up to 72 hours and exposed to extremes in temperature. As Dr. Jean Cypher, a veterinarian specializing in avian medicine states, “A day-old chick can no more withstand three days in a dark crowded box than can any other newborn.” Other experts in avian medicine and behavior agree that transporting day-old chicks in boxes for the first 24-72 hours of life is cruel and medically detrimental to the birds. Chicken sexing is more art than science: Using data collected from sanctuaries and rescues that field calls daily about unwanted chickens, we estimate between 20 and 50 percent of purchased “hens” are actually roosters. Depending on breed, visually identifying a rooster can take weeks to months.Roosters may be unwanted and are often illegal: Male chickens are generally unwanted for two reasons: They don’t produce eggs and they are rarely legal in urban or suburban settings. Hatcheries may use rooster chicks as packing material, regardless of whether they were ordered. Most incorporated or urban regions that do permit chickens only allow hens, not roosters. Unwanted roosters may be abandoned to the streets, slaughtered or end up in a municipal shelter to be killed. Very few find their way into a permanent home or sanctuary.Chickens attract rodents: Even the cleanest coop is attractive to rats and mice, which enjoy the free bedding (straw and shavings) and food. Rodents are generally viewed as pests and their presence is unwanted by chicken owners and neighbors.Lack of professional medical care: Avian medicine has made progress but there are few vets specialized in the treatment and care of birds. Veterinarians who do treat poultry are often expensive, with the average vet visit starting at a minimum of $100.
CONCERNS WITH NEW ORDINANCES ALLOWING BACKYARD POULTREnforcement costs: Municipal shelters run on a tight budget dealing with animal cruelty cases, dangerous dog calls, and the normal day to day operation of their facilities. Adding an extra burden, like enforcing chicken licensing laws and related complaints, is unwise amidst current economic concerns. Slaughter: The average chicken guardian is ill-equipped to “properly” stun and kill a chicken. Further, slaughtering can be traumatic for neighbors, including impressionable children. If chickens are to be permitted in urban areas, they must be protected from cruel mistreatment as much as “traditional” companion animals like dogs or cats, including a ban on slaughtering them for consumption. Roosters will be killed: Creating new ordinances permitting chickens creates a market for killing 50% of all chicks born in hatcheries. Urban and suburban areas considering chickens generally ban roosters, yet male chickens comprise half of all chicks born. Hatcheries mail roosters as packing material, and sexing of chickens is more art than science (see above). When residents purchase chicks from hatcheries or feedstores and end up with roosters, they will be put in the position of having to rehome the bird(s). Most roosters are not rehomed and end up abandoned or dumped at shelters, where they are invariably killed.
SUGGESTIONS IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING A BACKYARD FLOCK-Make sure it’s legal: If you live in an unincorporated area, contact your planning department and ask about the zoning requirements regarding poultry. If you live in an incorporated region, contact the city clerk for information on ordinances regarding chickens.Adopt: Avoid the cruelties of the hatcheries by adopting birds already in existence who need homes. Check out www.petfinder.org for animals available at your local shelter. Visit www.sanctuaries.org or www.farmanimalshelters.org and contact a sanctuary near you about adopting birds. If they do not have birds, do not give up. Sanctuaries and rescues receive inquiries daily regarding animals needing homes – ask that you be contacted if one of these calls occurs.Do your research: Chickens can be wonderful companions. While they are relatively easy to maintain, they do have special needs. Be sure to research housing, predator proofing, diet and medical needs. Some things to be aware of:• Some breeds of chickens are cold-sensitive: Hens and roosters with large single combs are prone to frostbite in cooler climates. Make sure adequate housing accommodates birds in both cool and hot temperatures.• Predator protection is vital: Chickens should be locked up at night in a safe enclosure that prevents access by all predators, including dogs, raccoons, aerial predators, rats, cats, wild canines, weasels, etc. During the day, animals should be housed in a fully-fenced enclosure or yard with proper protection from aerial, daytime predators and neighborhood dogs and, in the case of small bantams, large domestic free-roaming cats.• Veterinary care is critical: Avian medicine is still considered an “exotic” practice and, as such, is more expensive. A one-time visit may start at $100. Nevertheless, before considering housing chickens, it is imperative that they have access to veterinary care.
http://thepress.net/view/full_story/5805211/article-Backyard-chicken-ban-gains-support-?instance=lead_story_bullets_left_column
Feb 05, 2010
The following letter was submitted to the Press by the Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center:As the country’s largest coalition of animal sanctuaries involved in the direct care of unwanted chickens, we are writing to you with our recommendations regarding the recent trend in backyard chicken-keeping.
As the popularity of raising backyard flocks has grown, our shelters have become inundated with calls to take in unwanted chickens. In addition, we understand many communities are now besieged with requests to legally regulate the keeping of backyard flocks.
Recognizing the importance of this issue, we have crafted the accompanying Position Statement.
Backyard chicken-keeping by amateurs raises many serious concerns regarding both the welfare of the birds and the community. Moreover, it raises serious concerns about ordinance enforcement issues and the burden placed on already overwhelmed local shelters when birds are abandoned, seized or surrendered.
Further, it must be pointed out that hatcheries marketing chickens for backyard flocks use cruel factory farm methods which include overcrowding, de-beaking, and the shipment of day-old chicks by mail – a process that subjects them to temperature extremes, injury and sustenance deprivation.
Unmarketable male chicks are often included as living packing material – leading to their eventual abandonment or surrender to local shelters.For all of these reasons, we respectfully urge you to read and consider the issues raised in the attached position statement on the keeping of chickens.
We urge you to consider the reasons we give for encouraging your municipality to resist becoming zoned for chicken-keeping.
If zoning is already in place, we urge your municipality to establish and enforce strict requirements designed to protect both the birds and your community from serious problems that will, quite predictably, otherwise result.Sincerely,Miriam Jones, spokesperson for the CoalitionEastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center Collective Position Statement on Backyard PoultryBACKGROUNDIn the past year, shelters and sanctuaries in urban and suburban areas have witnessed a dramatic increase in the intake of chickens, particularly roosters. Hatcheries producing day-old chicks for shipment to feed stores and individuals are backlogged with orders.
The desire to raise poultry can be linked to organic backyard farming as well as a desire to have direct access to food (eggs and, in some cases, meat).As a coalition of animal sanctuaries interested in the welfare of hens and roosters, we have created this position statement on the keeping and raising of chickens.
All of us have been inundated with calls to take in hens and roosters who are a) no longer wanted; b) not the correct sex, or c) not legally permissible. As organizations with limited resources and space, it is no longer feasible to take in even a small percentage of these unwanted animals. Even with placement assistance, most of these chickens, particularly roosters, do not find permanent placement.
This leaves municipal dog and cat shelters the task of taking in, housing, feeding, caring for and inevitably killing healthy, adoptable chickens.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN BACKYARD FLOCKS
Hatcheries are like puppy mills: When animals are reduced to commodities, their best interests are pushed aside in favor of profit. Hatcheries that produce chicks for backyard flocks treat chickens and their offspring in much the same way puppy mills treat breeding dogs and their puppies. There are no legal requirements dictating how breeding hens and roosters are housed, meaning they may be crammed into small cages or sheds without outdoor access.Shipping day-old chicks is cruel: Most chickens purchased are bought from hatcheries or feed stores (these chicks originate from hatcheries). Hatcheries ship day-old birds through the postal service without any legal oversight. Young chickens are deprived of food and water for up to 72 hours and exposed to extremes in temperature. As Dr. Jean Cypher, a veterinarian specializing in avian medicine states, “A day-old chick can no more withstand three days in a dark crowded box than can any other newborn.” Other experts in avian medicine and behavior agree that transporting day-old chicks in boxes for the first 24-72 hours of life is cruel and medically detrimental to the birds. Chicken sexing is more art than science: Using data collected from sanctuaries and rescues that field calls daily about unwanted chickens, we estimate between 20 and 50 percent of purchased “hens” are actually roosters. Depending on breed, visually identifying a rooster can take weeks to months.Roosters may be unwanted and are often illegal: Male chickens are generally unwanted for two reasons: They don’t produce eggs and they are rarely legal in urban or suburban settings. Hatcheries may use rooster chicks as packing material, regardless of whether they were ordered. Most incorporated or urban regions that do permit chickens only allow hens, not roosters. Unwanted roosters may be abandoned to the streets, slaughtered or end up in a municipal shelter to be killed. Very few find their way into a permanent home or sanctuary.Chickens attract rodents: Even the cleanest coop is attractive to rats and mice, which enjoy the free bedding (straw and shavings) and food. Rodents are generally viewed as pests and their presence is unwanted by chicken owners and neighbors.Lack of professional medical care: Avian medicine has made progress but there are few vets specialized in the treatment and care of birds. Veterinarians who do treat poultry are often expensive, with the average vet visit starting at a minimum of $100.
CONCERNS WITH NEW ORDINANCES ALLOWING BACKYARD POULTREnforcement costs: Municipal shelters run on a tight budget dealing with animal cruelty cases, dangerous dog calls, and the normal day to day operation of their facilities. Adding an extra burden, like enforcing chicken licensing laws and related complaints, is unwise amidst current economic concerns. Slaughter: The average chicken guardian is ill-equipped to “properly” stun and kill a chicken. Further, slaughtering can be traumatic for neighbors, including impressionable children. If chickens are to be permitted in urban areas, they must be protected from cruel mistreatment as much as “traditional” companion animals like dogs or cats, including a ban on slaughtering them for consumption. Roosters will be killed: Creating new ordinances permitting chickens creates a market for killing 50% of all chicks born in hatcheries. Urban and suburban areas considering chickens generally ban roosters, yet male chickens comprise half of all chicks born. Hatcheries mail roosters as packing material, and sexing of chickens is more art than science (see above). When residents purchase chicks from hatcheries or feedstores and end up with roosters, they will be put in the position of having to rehome the bird(s). Most roosters are not rehomed and end up abandoned or dumped at shelters, where they are invariably killed.
SUGGESTIONS IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING A BACKYARD FLOCK-Make sure it’s legal: If you live in an unincorporated area, contact your planning department and ask about the zoning requirements regarding poultry. If you live in an incorporated region, contact the city clerk for information on ordinances regarding chickens.Adopt: Avoid the cruelties of the hatcheries by adopting birds already in existence who need homes. Check out www.petfinder.org for animals available at your local shelter. Visit www.sanctuaries.org or www.farmanimalshelters.org and contact a sanctuary near you about adopting birds. If they do not have birds, do not give up. Sanctuaries and rescues receive inquiries daily regarding animals needing homes – ask that you be contacted if one of these calls occurs.Do your research: Chickens can be wonderful companions. While they are relatively easy to maintain, they do have special needs. Be sure to research housing, predator proofing, diet and medical needs. Some things to be aware of:• Some breeds of chickens are cold-sensitive: Hens and roosters with large single combs are prone to frostbite in cooler climates. Make sure adequate housing accommodates birds in both cool and hot temperatures.• Predator protection is vital: Chickens should be locked up at night in a safe enclosure that prevents access by all predators, including dogs, raccoons, aerial predators, rats, cats, wild canines, weasels, etc. During the day, animals should be housed in a fully-fenced enclosure or yard with proper protection from aerial, daytime predators and neighborhood dogs and, in the case of small bantams, large domestic free-roaming cats.• Veterinary care is critical: Avian medicine is still considered an “exotic” practice and, as such, is more expensive. A one-time visit may start at $100. Nevertheless, before considering housing chickens, it is imperative that they have access to veterinary care.
http://thepress.net/view/full_story/5805211/article-Backyard-chicken-ban-gains-support-?instance=lead_story_bullets_left_column
Friday, April 16, 2010
Real Clear Politics, Rothenberger DETOX: Read Label before you Swallow
Five Thirty-Eight has a problem with Real Clear Politics polling methods. So do we.
Five Thirty-Eight admits their site is not devoid of partisan slant, but they contend that RCP's "partisan leaning is infused into their numbers." That's where Five Thirty-Eight draws the line.
"If RCP disclosed their methodology -- articulated their rationale for excluding or including certain polls -- I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do not, so I do not."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html
We also have a problem with Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report who shows recent movement in House seats with no analytical or statistical reference.
Where did the movement come from? For instance what is the movement based on for each elected official? Is there a science to it? Or is it all about who has the most in the bank? There is less detail given in this blog entry than other prognostications Rothenberg has made-- let's say for instance the Mass race, which clearly, was moving in Brown's direction for lots of reasons. Rothenberg's prediction on the Mass race was backed up by polls. No eight-ball busting there.
Way back in 2006 David Sirota said " in a world where 98 percent of incumbents get reelected. I mean, really - how difficult can predictions be when all you have to do is say "the incumbent is going to win" in order to be 98% accurate?
David asked the more important question when he said, " The question is: when will the media stop calling (him) Rothenberg "nonpartisan" and start labeling him as a conservative?"
http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/04/stu-rothenberg-cant-hide-his-right.html
Five Thirty-Eight admits their site is not devoid of partisan slant, but they contend that RCP's "partisan leaning is infused into their numbers." That's where Five Thirty-Eight draws the line.
"If RCP disclosed their methodology -- articulated their rationale for excluding or including certain polls -- I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do not, so I do not."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html
We also have a problem with Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report who shows recent movement in House seats with no analytical or statistical reference.
Where did the movement come from? For instance what is the movement based on for each elected official? Is there a science to it? Or is it all about who has the most in the bank? There is less detail given in this blog entry than other prognostications Rothenberg has made-- let's say for instance the Mass race, which clearly, was moving in Brown's direction for lots of reasons. Rothenberg's prediction on the Mass race was backed up by polls. No eight-ball busting there.
Way back in 2006 David Sirota said " in a world where 98 percent of incumbents get reelected. I mean, really - how difficult can predictions be when all you have to do is say "the incumbent is going to win" in order to be 98% accurate?
David asked the more important question when he said, " The question is: when will the media stop calling (him) Rothenberg "nonpartisan" and start labeling him as a conservative?"
http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/04/stu-rothenberg-cant-hide-his-right.html
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Obama Channels Reagan
Excerpts from Bloomberg
Bloomberg says Obama is mirroring Reagan's first term.
Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who’s running Democratic candidate-recruitment efforts. “What was good for the Gipper can be good for Obama.”
Psychology was paramount in Reagan’s success, said Charles Franklin, a voting-behavior expert at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. “It was the rise in optimism that allowed Reagan to run a campaign based on these wonderful commercials,” he said.
Obama and Reagan: similarities
Like Obama, Reagan entered office with an approval rating of about 68 percent and on a message of change.
While the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose about 20 percent in Obama’s first year in office, it fell 10 percent during Reagan’s inaugural year.
In his address to the 1984 Republican National Convention, Reagan stressed his problems were inherited.
Obama and Reagan: Differences
Reagan had a simple message of small government and low taxes, while Obama’s agenda is soaring and “cloudy,” said Hess. “As a politician, you should be able to put it on a bumper sticker,” he said.
Obama doesn’t exude the “happy optimism” that Reagan did, said Hess.
He may also have deeper economic concerns: Obama’s 2011 budget proposal projects unemployment will average 8.2 percent in 2012, higher than when he took office.
Still, vulnerable Democrats are using Obama’s arguments. Ohio Representative Steve Driehaus, who holds one of the Rothenberg Political Report’s “dangerous dozen” House seats, said voters need to understand how the country got here.
“There was a critical juncture at the end of the Clinton administration when the budget was in the black,” before Republicans began running up deficits, he said. “We’re still picking up the pieces.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=adS3wA1zJam8
Bloomberg says Obama is mirroring Reagan's first term.
Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who’s running Democratic candidate-recruitment efforts. “What was good for the Gipper can be good for Obama.”
Psychology was paramount in Reagan’s success, said Charles Franklin, a voting-behavior expert at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. “It was the rise in optimism that allowed Reagan to run a campaign based on these wonderful commercials,” he said.
Obama and Reagan: similarities
Like Obama, Reagan entered office with an approval rating of about 68 percent and on a message of change.
While the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose about 20 percent in Obama’s first year in office, it fell 10 percent during Reagan’s inaugural year.
In his address to the 1984 Republican National Convention, Reagan stressed his problems were inherited.
Obama and Reagan: Differences
Reagan had a simple message of small government and low taxes, while Obama’s agenda is soaring and “cloudy,” said Hess. “As a politician, you should be able to put it on a bumper sticker,” he said.
Obama doesn’t exude the “happy optimism” that Reagan did, said Hess.
He may also have deeper economic concerns: Obama’s 2011 budget proposal projects unemployment will average 8.2 percent in 2012, higher than when he took office.
Still, vulnerable Democrats are using Obama’s arguments. Ohio Representative Steve Driehaus, who holds one of the Rothenberg Political Report’s “dangerous dozen” House seats, said voters need to understand how the country got here.
“There was a critical juncture at the end of the Clinton administration when the budget was in the black,” before Republicans began running up deficits, he said. “We’re still picking up the pieces.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=adS3wA1zJam8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)