http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Media-availability-How-candidates-deal-or-don-t-531388.php
http://blog.ctnews.com/politicalcapitol/2010/06/16/john-mertens-what-do-i-have-to-do-to-get-some-traditional-media-attention/
We are facing huge long-term problems: a real unemployment rate of 18%, dysfunctional banks that are "too big to fail", a regressive tax structure that's stifling economic growth, prisons that are bursting at the seams, urban schools that are struggling, a health care system that still needs major reform, the lack of a coherent national energy policy that will protect our economy and the environment, and a government that has been encroaching on our civil liberties. For decades we have lived with irresponsible public policies from career politicians in Congress who care more about increasing their party’s power and getting re-elected than they care about solving long-term problems. They haven’t been honest with us, and they have been lousy public servants.
I’m different. I do not want to be a career politician. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I’m a Problem Solver. I want to force members of Congress to be responsible, and implement sustainable solutions to real problems. Please read the positions I present on this website, and spread the word to friends and family.
Please email me at John@Mertens2010.com, and become a supporter on Twitter at @mertens4senate or Facebook: John's FB
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Hartford Courant "Capital Watch" posts John's response to President Obama's speech
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/06/independent-us-sen-candidate-j.html
Here's the content:
"I think politically, it was a fair speech," Mertens said via email this morning. "He emphasized the efforts that they are implementing and starting to implement now, and touched on all the issues. But it also exposes the weakness of the initial response, in the first two weeks, to the accident. I was infuriated during the first week by the usual practice of taking a 'best case scenario' view of the situation."
"As an engineer, I know that in order to protect the public good, we must always assume and prepare for the worst case scenario. Also, as an engineer and energy policy teacher, I was very disappointed that his discussion of energy alternatives was extremely vague. He didn't mention electric cars! We will never wean ourselves from oil until we convert to electricity as our transportation energy distribution system. And, unfortunately, I do not have a lot of confidence in Dr. Chu or Mr. Salazar."
Here's the content:
"I think politically, it was a fair speech," Mertens said via email this morning. "He emphasized the efforts that they are implementing and starting to implement now, and touched on all the issues. But it also exposes the weakness of the initial response, in the first two weeks, to the accident. I was infuriated during the first week by the usual practice of taking a 'best case scenario' view of the situation."
"As an engineer, I know that in order to protect the public good, we must always assume and prepare for the worst case scenario. Also, as an engineer and energy policy teacher, I was very disappointed that his discussion of energy alternatives was extremely vague. He didn't mention electric cars! We will never wean ourselves from oil until we convert to electricity as our transportation energy distribution system. And, unfortunately, I do not have a lot of confidence in Dr. Chu or Mr. Salazar."
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
T.V. Show "John Mertens for U.S. Senate" Running in All 169 Connecticut Towns
Candidate for U.S. Senate Dr. John Mertens announced that his monthly television show is now airing on every public access television station in Connecticut. "John Mertens for U.S. Senate" features thirty minutes of in-depth discussion of a different issue each month, between the candidate and the guests.
The show has been running in most of the state since November 2009, but it wasn't until recently that it began running in East Hartford and Bloomfield. It is the first time that any public access show has run state-wide. "Every station has different technical and sponsorship requirements, and it has been a lot of work and logistics," said Mertens. "I would love to see other candidates spend thirty minutes talking about different issues, instead of campaigning with thirty-second commercials."
The broadcast schedule varies around the state, but in most towns it runs weekly or twice a week, often in prime time slots.
Show titles have included: "U.S. Drug Policy", "Social Security", "Health Care", "Jobs", "Afghanistan", "Energy and the Environment", "John Answers the Debate Questions", "Meet John" and "The Independent Party". Most can be viewed online at YouTube.com.
The show has been running in most of the state since November 2009, but it wasn't until recently that it began running in East Hartford and Bloomfield. It is the first time that any public access show has run state-wide. "Every station has different technical and sponsorship requirements, and it has been a lot of work and logistics," said Mertens. "I would love to see other candidates spend thirty minutes talking about different issues, instead of campaigning with thirty-second commercials."
The broadcast schedule varies around the state, but in most towns it runs weekly or twice a week, often in prime time slots.
Show titles have included: "U.S. Drug Policy", "Social Security", "Health Care", "Jobs", "Afghanistan", "Energy and the Environment", "John Answers the Debate Questions", "Meet John" and "The Independent Party". Most can be viewed online at YouTube.com.
Monday, June 7, 2010
John Mertens Responds to Warren Mosler's Million Dollar Challenge
John Mertens says that Warren Mosler's million dollars are safe. Mosler has offered one million dollars to any Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate who is on the ballot who can prove Mosler's economic theories are wrong.
"As one of two candidates currently on the ballot in November, I can say with certainty that Mr. Mosler's economics are correct: the U.S. will not run out of dollars or face a solvency crisis like Greece. And Mr. Mosler's jobs plan, while differing significantly from my proposals, would also work. Voters should pay close attention to the ideas of third-party candidates."
"As one of two candidates currently on the ballot in November, I can say with certainty that Mr. Mosler's economics are correct: the U.S. will not run out of dollars or face a solvency crisis like Greece. And Mr. Mosler's jobs plan, while differing significantly from my proposals, would also work. Voters should pay close attention to the ideas of third-party candidates."
Sunday, June 6, 2010
John Mertens Attending 33rd Annual Yeshiva of New Haven Gathering Tonight
U.S. Senate Candidate John Mertens will be introduced at the 33rd Annual Yeshiva of New Haven Gathering tonight, Sunday, June 6th at 7:00pm at the Peabody Museum's Great Dinosaur Hall, 170 Whitney Ave., New Haven, CT. All other candidates for Connecticut statewide office have been invited to attend and be introduced.
The Keynote speaker will be Al Konetzni, Jr., Vice Admiral, USN (Ret.), Commander, Pacific Fleet. There will be a special tribute to Jeffrey B. Butler, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Connecticut Light and Power Company, and the presentation of the Community Service Award to Andy and Paige Weinstein, owners of Star Tire.
The Keynote speaker will be Al Konetzni, Jr., Vice Admiral, USN (Ret.), Commander, Pacific Fleet. There will be a special tribute to Jeffrey B. Butler, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Connecticut Light and Power Company, and the presentation of the Community Service Award to Andy and Paige Weinstein, owners of Star Tire.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Jobs!
We have a real unemployment rate of 18%, when we include people who are underemployed (working only part time jobs), or have stopped seeking work and are no longer included in the "official" unemployment figures. My goal is to reduce real unemployment to below 5%. Here's how we do it:
U.S. unemployment levels are most affected by our overall tax rate. When unemployment is too low, there is a shortage of workers for employers, it causes inflation, and hurts our economy. In this situation government should cool off the economy by raising taxes, which reduces demand, and stabilizes unemployment rates. When unemployment is too high (I would say if it gets above 7%), government should lower taxes in a progressive way, putting more money into the hands of the average person, which increases demand, and creates jobs.
I support a carefully crafted change to our payroll tax system until real unemployment drops below 8%, followed by additional payroll tax adjustments to provide a "soft landing" to our goal of getting unemployment below 5%. Here's my plan:
Currently, any household that makes less than $106,800 a year pays 7.65% of their payroll checks in FICA taxes. People who make more than $106,800 per year pay only 1.45% of their additional earnings into FICA! (See my positions on "Tax Fairness" and "Social Security" on this website). This means that a family that makes $100,000 a year pays approximately $6,000 of social security tax, and someone who makes $10 million a year also pays only $6,000 a year! This also applies to the employer contributions to FICA; employers must match the tax payments that are deducted from their employees' checks. This is a huge tax burden on small businesses in particular.
This is terribly regressive, unfair, and worst of all, very bad for our economy. Taxing lower income people more than higher income people prevents spending in our economy. If someone makes a lot of money, having an extra $6,000 a year doesn't really change their spending. But if a middle class family has an extra $6,000 a year, they will spend it. We should allow working families to keep that money to help pay their mortgages and pay their bills, which will create jobs and reduce unemployment. It will also help small companies meet their payrolls and stay in business!
Here's what I suggest:
Annual Family Income vs. FICA Tax Rate
less than $100,000: 0%
anything earned above $100,000: 7.65%
(Note: the 7.65% is only on the income above $100,000)
This will create a tremendous amount of jobs, greatly reduce the rate of foreclosures on houses, greatly reduce the rate of business closures, reduce government unemployment payments, and get our economy back on track very quickly. It will also discourage corporations from giving huge bonuses to their top executives, because now they would have to pay the same FICA taxes on the bonuses as they do for their lower-income workers' paychecks.
Once real unemployment drops below 8%, FICA taxes of 3.825% on incomes below $100,000 would apply, and once real unemployment drops below 5%, the 7.65% FICA tax would apply to all income levels.
Some would call this a "payroll tax holiday", but it is much more than that. It also addresses equity issues in our tax structure.
U.S. unemployment levels are most affected by our overall tax rate. When unemployment is too low, there is a shortage of workers for employers, it causes inflation, and hurts our economy. In this situation government should cool off the economy by raising taxes, which reduces demand, and stabilizes unemployment rates. When unemployment is too high (I would say if it gets above 7%), government should lower taxes in a progressive way, putting more money into the hands of the average person, which increases demand, and creates jobs.
I support a carefully crafted change to our payroll tax system until real unemployment drops below 8%, followed by additional payroll tax adjustments to provide a "soft landing" to our goal of getting unemployment below 5%. Here's my plan:
Currently, any household that makes less than $106,800 a year pays 7.65% of their payroll checks in FICA taxes. People who make more than $106,800 per year pay only 1.45% of their additional earnings into FICA! (See my positions on "Tax Fairness" and "Social Security" on this website). This means that a family that makes $100,000 a year pays approximately $6,000 of social security tax, and someone who makes $10 million a year also pays only $6,000 a year! This also applies to the employer contributions to FICA; employers must match the tax payments that are deducted from their employees' checks. This is a huge tax burden on small businesses in particular.
This is terribly regressive, unfair, and worst of all, very bad for our economy. Taxing lower income people more than higher income people prevents spending in our economy. If someone makes a lot of money, having an extra $6,000 a year doesn't really change their spending. But if a middle class family has an extra $6,000 a year, they will spend it. We should allow working families to keep that money to help pay their mortgages and pay their bills, which will create jobs and reduce unemployment. It will also help small companies meet their payrolls and stay in business!
Here's what I suggest:
Annual Family Income vs. FICA Tax Rate
less than $100,000: 0%
anything earned above $100,000: 7.65%
(Note: the 7.65% is only on the income above $100,000)
This will create a tremendous amount of jobs, greatly reduce the rate of foreclosures on houses, greatly reduce the rate of business closures, reduce government unemployment payments, and get our economy back on track very quickly. It will also discourage corporations from giving huge bonuses to their top executives, because now they would have to pay the same FICA taxes on the bonuses as they do for their lower-income workers' paychecks.
Once real unemployment drops below 8%, FICA taxes of 3.825% on incomes below $100,000 would apply, and once real unemployment drops below 5%, the 7.65% FICA tax would apply to all income levels.
Some would call this a "payroll tax holiday", but it is much more than that. It also addresses equity issues in our tax structure.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
John to Attend African-American Affairs Commission 11th Annual Classic Awards
John will attend the State of Connecticut African-American Affairs Commission 11th Annual Classic Awards on Friday, May 7th beginning at 6:30 pm in the Atrium of the State Legislative Office Building, 300 Capitol Ave., Hartford.
The Following Awards Will Be Presented:
Man of the Year: Dr. G. Duncan Harris, Dean of Student Affairs, Manchester Community College
Woman of the Year: Dr. Shirley A. Jackson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Southern Connecticut State University.
Youths of the Year: Ayibatari Sikpi, Old Saybrook High School and Aaron Eaddy, Glastonbury High School.
Lifetime Achievement: Jane L. Givenhand-Glover, Founder, Kente' Cultural Center
Business and Economic Development: Keith Newton Tinker, Tinker Realty and Insurance, Inc.
The Following Awards Will Be Presented:
Man of the Year: Dr. G. Duncan Harris, Dean of Student Affairs, Manchester Community College
Woman of the Year: Dr. Shirley A. Jackson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Southern Connecticut State University.
Youths of the Year: Ayibatari Sikpi, Old Saybrook High School and Aaron Eaddy, Glastonbury High School.
Lifetime Achievement: Jane L. Givenhand-Glover, Founder, Kente' Cultural Center
Business and Economic Development: Keith Newton Tinker, Tinker Realty and Insurance, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)