Presidential-Race.net

As related to the Presidential-Race.net Global Risks page, corporations and societal responsibilities is something your chief-executive (President) can influence in a positive manner.

Corporate Accountability International nominees for incorporation into the Corporate Hall of Fame include the following company names it is certain most readers will recognize.

• Mattel – for producing mounds of lead-contaminated children’s toys while lobbying against bans on other toxic chemicals.
• Wal-Mart – for displacing local businesses failing to cover employees under the corporation health-plan, and opposing legislation that would increase homeland security.
• Toyota – for lobbying against measures to reduce global-warming gas emissions while spending millions to advertise it’s environmental leadership (via production of hybrid vehicles).
• Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) – for contributing to global warming by clearing endangered forests to develop palm-oil plantations.
• Nestle’ – for labor violations (includes child exploitation) and threatening community water supplies when establishing water bottling plants.

Corporate Accountability International reports last year more than 20,000 votes were cast to induct Hall-of-Shamers Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton and Wal-Mart. Will your government continue to allow those corporation conglomerates (and others) continue to rob you of life, liberty, and natural resources? Whose into your wallet?

Mattel:

Wal-Mart:

ADM:

Nestle’:

As related to the Presidential-Race.net issues and risks section (challenges over the coming 10 years any presidential winner will have to successfully address), Nestle COE Brabeck-Letmathe was recently quoted in the Industry Week publication of 25-March-2008, “If as predicted we look to use bio-fuels to satisfy 20% of the growing demand for oil products, there will be nothing left to eat,” as Mssr. Brabeck-Letmathe believes growing use of crops such as wheat and corn to make bio-fuels will place world food supplies in peril.

Social morals, social implications, environment, economics are all involved in this challenge. Can we consume less to conserve the building block of petrol? Yes, but not indefinitely.

Would bio-fuel production then be morally responsible or acceptable? You bet. Remember oil demand is growing and resources are depleting (supply and demand issue we can all attest to while witnessing rising prices at the pump), the world population is growing with housing requirements in demand; squeezing land availability for cultivation AND while water sources grow limited – which combined in due haste will make the nightmare of food shortages a reality for some.

What can your candidate do to influence the leaders of developed developing nations to address this critical issue? Do they possess the wit and character needed to help the world overcome this challenge?

Video of the Antarctic ice shelf disintegration believed caused by the carbon-footprint of man driving global warming.

This is it! The BEST way to tell if your candidate is telling the truth or lying - no hookup, no training, no papers required. You don’t even need to have them in the room with you - broadcasting on television is good enough!! (Unfortunately, this is cost prohibitive for most at this time - a stellar $14K+)

Where’s your politician, and could they hold up to this?

The Business Journal of Phoenix (2/28, Sunnucks) reports Compete America, a business group whose members include Microsoft Corp, Google Inc., Motorola Inc., Intel Corp., Coca-Cola Co., and Boeing Co. has asked "Congress to increase the number of work visas for high-tech workers and avoid a hard-line approach to the immigration issue." The group is advocating an increase in the number of H-1B visas as "U.S. corporations (including the technology ones in Compete America) use the visa program to bring in foreign workers for skilled and technical jobs." Currently, the "federal cap for H-1Bs stands at 65,000 annually and the queue for those work permits fills up immediately each year." The group says businesses "need skilled foreign workers to fill jobs in the U.S."

You think the immigration issue relates only to lower-paying jobs? You’ve got another think coming…

As many know, if Oprah Winfrey picks a book to review on her televised show, it quickly turns in to a best seller.

Now Oprah will be campaigning for Democrat Barack Obama - which is believed will generate appeal to a broad socio-demographic slice across America. Will it, or should it?

Remember the Oprah fiasco with having Plastic Surgeon Dr. Jan Adams on her show, extolling the wonders of plastic surgery and what he has done (…and overlooked the fact he had a couple of pending malpractice suits filed against him)…and shortly thereafter Kanye West’s mother visited the surgeon; ended in a tragedy after 8 hours of surgery. Oops. Not everything Oprah recommends is perfect, is it?

While Oprah denies recommending the doctor to West, in essence she did by default, once she had the Doctor on her show. It was a form of advertising, perhaps even viewed as sponsorship - and the show influenced a wrong choice made by a dedicated viewer. Very sad story.

The moral of the story: One celebrity endorsement does not make or break a candidate. Nor should it swing your vote. As a voter, and as defined in The Voter’s Creed:

"I will learn my country’s weaknesses, strengths, government branches, and structure of federal and state offices in order to cast the best vote possible. I will ever guard my country against the ravages of poor politics and damage of questionable politicians with my vote as it will ever guard my government, my country-men and women, our children and our future against harm. I will monitor and help keep clean our government to be at the ready to help America and its people in the principles of justice and common honesty with the power of my vote."

Voters - research the candidates with their positions and policies, and make the best selection based on what you see as facts and how the candidate will benefit your country - not on which celebrity endorsed a candidate. Happy voting!

As reported by an Associated Press and Yahoo! News survey, while most in the U.S. are personally happy and feel in control of their lives and finances, personal and political discontent is starting to rise. The online survey of 2,230 adults was conducted Nov. 2-12 and had a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.1% points. The survey included 1,049 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was +/- 3 % points, and 827 Republicans, for whom the margin of sampling error was +/- 3.4% points.

77% of those surveyed (Nearly all Democrats and more than six in 10 Republicans) believe the country has wandered in the wrong direction.

Almost 50% express interest and hope in the upcoming elections, 33% voiced frustration—particularly Republicans. People are paying attention to the 2008 presidential campaign. Solid majorities think their vote matters and say this wide-open presidential contest is more important than usual.

More Democrats than Republicans say they are hopeful about the voting (54% vs 39%), and more of them are interested in it. Republicans are more likely to say the election leaves them frustrated and bored - and believe they don’t have that great of a choice among Republican candidates.

Democrats and Republicans differ when defining the key issues. Democrats list the economy and health care followed by Iraq, while Republicans name three equally—terrorism, the economy and Iraq.

As limp housing and credit markets dominate recent headlines, financial problems are at the heart of many people’s worries. Though 75% say they control their financial situation, most say they are having trouble getting ahead, including 33% who say that has become very difficult.

In a measure of the two parties’ traditional strengths with income classes, people saying they are enjoying good financial times said they are slightly likelier to support next year’s Republican presidential candidate over the Democrat. Those saying times are tough are less likely to vote, but back the Democrat by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, though they don’t necessarily blame Republicans for their problems.

"We have illegal immigrants coming in, they work for cheaper and that keeps black folks out of jobs," said Charlie Burnette, 56, a mechanic from Durham, N.C.

When it comes to the stressed out, they are as likely to vote Democratic or Republican as are those without such tension in their lives. The same is true for people who generally trust others and those who do not.

66% of those polled said they approve of gambling, but overwhelming majorities disapproved of heavy drinking, smoking marijuana, and using cable TV or a neighbor’s Internet connection or sharing music or video files without paying. There are scant party differences in most, though Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to approve of marijuana smoking, and young people are far likelier than their elders to assent to each one.

[The Internet survey uses Knowledge Networks' online panel, which is nationally representative because people are first contacted using traditional telephone polling methods, and then followed with online interviews. People selected for the study who do not already have Internet access are provided with it for free.]

Headline: House Passes $21.3 Billion Fiscal 2007 Foreign Aid Spending Bill

As reported by staff writer Kathryn McConnell for the Washington File, The U.S. House of Representatives has approved $21.3 billion in foreign assistance spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1 (fiscal year 2007).

The bill passed June 9 by a 373-34 vote. Amounts identified were:

• $3.4 billion for the international fight against HIV/AIDS (does not include Israel, Egypt and Sudan; who are next),
• $2.5 billion in aid to Israel,
• $1.8 billion for Egypt, and;
• $450 million for Sudan.

For non HIV/AIDS funding:

• $2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA; rewards countries for economic progress and political and social development efforts.),
• $522 million for Iraq reconstruction,
• $962 million for Afghanistan reconstruction,
• $217 million for Jordan’s security needs,
• $251 million in economic assistance (Jordan),
• $80 million in humanitarian assistance to the West Bank and Gaza area,
• $507 million for the next stage of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative (not sure if this was a sub-set of the next amount so I counted each separately as worst case),
• $704 million for the total anti-narcotics funding for the region,
• $371 million appropriated for former republics of the Soviet Union ,
• $228 million for Eastern Europe and the Baltic states,
• $1.3 billion for multilateral development assistance,
• $1.3 billion for international financial institutions, such as the World Bank,
• $750 million for migration and refuges assistance,
• $522 million for a new Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund to help nations qualify for and implement free-trade agreements,
• $70 million in economic assistance,
• $5 million in military assistance and training funds for Indonesia, and;
• $325 million to fund the Peace Corps.

Added the figures and checked the addition 3 times with help of a calculator then a spreadsheet program (due to initial disbelief). Altogether it leaves $3.036 billion in foreign assistance spending UNACCOUNTED FOR.

The simplest question for the government is, "where is it?".

The tougher question is "whose pockets did it line?".

There are plenty of states with high levels of unemployed CITIZENS in these United States that could use the economic assistance, development, training, security, and HIV/AIDs we are providing to other countries…$3.036 billion would go a long way!  We need an accounting for the $3.036 million balance.

Will you vote to select the next president who will be wise enough to pay more attention to OUR poor, OUR tired, and OUR hungry masses?