The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.
The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.
The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."
i wonder if my taxes will go up because i voted for Kerry?
And clearly, under the Dems, if anyone got soaked it would be the more affluent. Not 'everyone'. I don't support it myself, but there's no need to demonise them (they're bad enough as it is; just not as bad as the animotronic cabbage that you did elect).
quote:Originally posted by Smug Git And clearly, under the Dems, if anyone got soaked it would be the more affluent. Not 'everyone'. I don't support it myself, but there's no need to demonise them (they're bad enough as it is; just not as bad as the animotronic cabbage that you did elect).
Guess that depends. Under the Clinton democrats were there no affluent?
(There was plenty, and Kerry wanted to set back taxes to the way they were to settle the books)
Were there copius state enterprises subverting the private market?
(There was deregulation and the pareing down of government)
Was there a deficet poised to suck future capital reserves out of the country?
(No, in fact there was the opportunity to pay back the deficet of old and cut taxes by the amount that is paid in interest upon the outstanding balance)
Fecking liberal socialists. They're so fiscally prudent.
Could well be (although not from Churchill's description; under that, it could be either socialism or liberalism). Both political parties in the US practice socialism, and neither admit it, so it shouldn't be any surprise. Bush's deficit budgets mean that you're going to have to pay more tax in the future for what you have today, too. Neither of them are economically conservative (although Kerry at least talked a balanced budget, and balanced budget with high tax is better than low tax with huge structural deficits, to most economic conservatives).
My point, though, was that your characterisation of likely tax results of a Kerry victory was probably incorrect.