Michael Halliwell1 
Member since Mar 26, 2012



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Congress: The Dating Game!

Humboldt County voters will have an opportunity to decide for themselves on the viability of candidates Renee and Halliwell. The March 20, 2012 Eureka Times Standard reports: “Congressional candidates to be at forum on aging and disability.” This year, North Coast residents will be voting to select a congressional representative with no incumbent running. When the Redistricting Commission redrew the congres-sional districts in California, previous representative Mike Thompson found himself outside the new boundaries. Thompson decided to run in his new district. The open seat in the new Second Congressional District has attracted many candidates. Two will survive the primary and one will win in November. The March 20, 2012 Eureka Times Standard notes: To find out what the candidates know about aging and disability issues like Social Security, Medicare, Federal support for long-term care and programs that allow aged and disabled persons to preserve their independence and remain in their own homes, attend the Congressional Candidates Forum on March 30 at the Humboldt Senior Resource Center, 1910 California St. in Eureka. Doors open at 1:30 p.m. The forum begins at 2 p.m. and ends at 4 p.m. The League of Women Voters will be moderating the forum, and attendees are encouraged to ask questions.

Posted by Michael Halliwell on 03/26/2012 at 12:31 PM

Re: “Congress: The Dating Game!

Ryan Burns sums up his March 15, 2012 Roberts analysis: Roberts’ campaign is almost entirely self-financed — $110,000 of his $113,851. Perhaps that helps account for his bluntness. This refusal to answer in safe generalities was, among other things, refreshing. “I’ve given the voters a different message and a clear choice,” he said.

Posted by Michael Halliwell on 03/26/2012 at 12:29 PM

Re: “Congress: The Dating Game!

Ryan Burns’ 3/15/12 “Congress: the Dating Game” discusses the apparent main focus of Roberts’ Humboldt County tour: Founder, president and CEO of San Francisco investment firm Roberts & Ryan, Roberts had driven his convertible black Pontiac Solstice up Hwy. 101 to attend the event. Before participating in the forum he sat down at the Fortuna Starbucks to talk about his priorities, his reasons for running and his campaign strategy. He’d barely sat down before an older woman approached him bashfully and said, “Hi, how do you do. You’re the Repub-lican candidate?” Yes, he replied. “I think that lady over there would like a chat with you at some point,” the woman said, pointing at two more gray-haired women seated nearby. They waved. Roberts was born and raised in San Francisco, where his business is now located. Is that a disadvantage given how rural most of the 2nd District is? “Why do you say that?” he challenged. “Where I live, down there it’s not [rural]. It’s rural up here. I don’t know how I’m gonna represent this [district] — it’s polar opposites, frankly.” Good point. People up here are worried about just that. “You know what? Don’t worry about it,” Roberts said. “The votes, frankly, are down south. Are they not?” In that case, why even bother driving up here? “Because I want to learn the fishery issues, environmental issues, the forestry — I don’t know those issues.” His visit to Humboldt County was a listening tour, he said, and he doesn’t see his unfamiliarity with local issues as a disadvantage. “I’m a businessman. I care about families. I care about small businesses perhaps more than about the environment … probably more than some theoretical heating or cooling issue.” He called global warming “unsettled science” and a bogeyman that’s served primarily to give Al Gore “a billion dollars … and 200 extra pounds.”

Posted by Michael Halliwell on 03/26/2012 at 12:27 PM

Re: “Congress: The Dating Game!

Ryan Burns’ 3/15/12 “Congress: the Dating Game” observes: The Journal asked about a claim made in a campaign video: “$787 Billion Stimulus Plan equals 2.4 Million Jobs LOST.” Where did that figure come from? “It probably comes off the press, the published articles on the subject,” he said. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal stimulus created between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs in the fall of 2010 alone. “Depends on who you want to believe,” Roberts countered. “I pick the Republican source.” He couldn’t recall what that source was. What Roberts has done is to convert a Republican claim that the CBO estimate was FALSE (2.4 million is the mid-point of the CBO range), into the concept that jobs which were not created were actually LOST. Mike Halliwell’s December 6, 2011 analysis of President Obama’s false claims of job creation, notes: The reason why various “stimulus packages” have had no NET impact, is people diverting much more of their earnings into savings, to be better able to protect themselves when government support for living standards based on printing press currency debasement collapses, as it becomes no longer possible to “kick the can down the road.”

Posted by Michael Halliwell on 03/26/2012 at 12:25 PM

Re: “Congress: The Dating Game!

The Journal next asks Roberts, What would he eliminate? “Cut departments,” he said. “You pick ‘em.” Roberts lists three: 1) Could be Energy [Roberts opposes key energy programs.] E-11 (2012) HR 3408 Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act. Supports Keystone XL Pipeline Linking Canadian oil sands production areas with American refineries. (Woolsey & Thompson = NO, Halliwell = YES) Roll Call #71 (237-187) All but 21 Republicans voted YES, all but 21 Democrats voted NO. Dan Roberts would apparently vote with Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson. 2) Could be EPA, [North Coast pollution also threatens us.] Bill Van Bonn’s “The Marine Mammal Center reflects on events in 2011” (quoted in the 3/8/12 Fort Bragg Advocate-News) cites environmental links between animal and human welfare: Marine mammals have been dubbed the “canaries of the sea.” Many of the illnesses they are facing can affect humans, too. Toxins such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), banned in the U.S. in 1979 and domoic acid poisoning (DAP), also known as “amnesic shellfish poisoning,” also affect humans. Domoic acid has been associated with harmful alga blooms. If a creature, such as a mollusk or other bottom feeder, is consumed from an area with a harmful alga bloom, the person, or animal, could get domoic acid poisoning. This nuerotoxin affects the hippocampus in the brain, the part that controls memory and spatial navigation. Bonn said some sea lions with DAP will be found in odd places, having lost their sense of navigation. 3) Perhaps Defense? [Roberts would make deep cuts.] M-11 (2011) HR 1540 Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012. (Woolsey & Thompson = NO, Halliwell = YES) Roll Call #375 (322-96) shows 97% of Republicans and a majority of Democrats voted in favor. Dan Roberts would apparently vote with Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson on this issue.

Posted by Michael Halliwell on 03/26/2012 at 12:24 PM

Re: “Congress: The Dating Game!

Ryan Burns’ 3/15/12 “Congress: the Dating Game” observes: As strategies go, simply being a Republican is enough to earn Roberts some loyal support, and he’s keeping his platform simple. Under the “Issues” tab on his campaign website only one issue is addressed: federal spending. Asked his opinion on other topics, Roberts said he needs to put everything aside except “one issue: fiscal conservatism. Cut the deficit, balance the budget, stop the spending. It starts there. All of our unhappiness begins with progressive liberals not doing that.” Had Tiffany Renee been part of The Journal’s comparison group, Roberts’ August 11, 2011 response to “Renee joins race for Woolsey’s seat” (www.watchsonomacounty.com) would have been an obvious contrast. Here Dan Roberts wrote:
For the first time in years, I plan to give the Sonoma County voters a clear choice for congress: fiscal conservative – moderate on all social issues. As opposed to Tiffany I had prior federal service when it mattered and long financial experience when now it matters. For a change I will run as a Republican [he joined the GOP in 2011] look for my position pieces which will run in the local press. Please look at www.danrobertsforcongress.com.

Posted by Michael Halliwell on 03/26/2012 at 12:22 PM

Re: “Congress: The Dating Game!

Roberts proposed a 15 percent flat-rate income tax across the board. “I think we should stop this class warfare that’s going on,” he said, prompting scattered applause from the crowd. Few in the crowd had a recent income tax return with them. Redwood Times (January 19, 2012) “Range of incomes was astonishing” reports candidate’s answers re “last year’s income,” when asked at a 1/15/12 candidate debate: Stacey Lawson $30,000 (when campaigning full time), Solomon $55,000 (also spent most time campaigning), Jared Huffman $85,000 (Assemblyman’s salary), Susan Adams $90,000 (Supervisor’s salary), Dan Roberts $300,000 (brokerage earnings). Let’s do a bit of tax computation. Basic 2011 Federal Income Taxes for a couple filing jointly: Personal Exemption (0% of first $7,400): $0 Standard Deduction (0% of next $11,400): $0 Bottom Bracket (10% of taxable $18,800 to $35,800): $1,700 15% Bracket (next taxable $35,800 to $87,800): $7,800 25% Bracket (next taxable $87,800 to $158,150): $17,588 28% Bracket (next taxable $158,150 to $231,100): $20,426 33% Bracket (next taxable $231,100 to $397,950): $55,060 35% Bracket (taxable $397,950 to $1,000,000): $210,718 Tracey Lawson’s $30,000 has a tax liability of no more than $1,120; under the Roberts Plan it would be $4,500. Norman Solomon’s $55,000 has a tax liability of no more than $4,580; Roberts would collect $7,500. Jared Huffman’s $85,000 salary requires sending no more than $9,080 to the IRS; the Robert’s plan would cost $12,750. Susan Adam’s $90,000 salary requires no more than $10,050 for Uncle Sam; the Roberts plan would cost $13,500. The $300,000 earned by Dan Roberts has a basic tax liability of $70,251; under his own plan Roberts would pay $45,000. A married stockbroker successful enough to earn $1,000,000 would have a basic tax liability of $313,292; under the Roberts plan this couple would owe only $150,000. Michael Halliwell’s most recent federal income tax return (couple filing jointly) shows a gross income of $108,588 with deductions for: a) personal exemptions $7,300, b) property taxes $4,200 c) mortgage interest $4,746 d) Books for Peace $17,000 e) mostly religious charitable contributions $2,806. The resulting tax was $9,794. Under the Roberts plan we would owe $16,288. The $6,494 difference would wipe out nearly half of the Halliwell’s charitable 501(c)(3) Books for Peace contribution, which pays for shipping donated books to Peace Corps school and library projects in the Philippines and Ukraine. Thus, when one considers that the cited incomes of his opponents are a reasonable cross section of the voting public, Dan Roberts goes forth in his 2012 campaign for Congress under this inspiring banner: “Let’s redistribute America’s income: more for me, less for you.”

Posted by Michael Halliwell on 03/26/2012 at 12:20 PM

All Comments »

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Update (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend (Thursday and Friday)

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2019 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation