Local Roaster pledges 7% of online sales to The American Cancer Society

Click HERE for information on their blog

Here’s their PRESS RELEASE



November 20, 2008

Gourmet Coffee and Tea company pledges 7% of online sales to The American Cancer Society.

WEST MONMOUTH, NJ – Gourmet coffee roaster Caffe-Amante of Manalapan NJ has kicked-off the holiday season with a giving spirit.

“It’s that time of year when one reflects on how they’ve been blessed, and there’s no better way to be grateful than to give back” said Bill Garcia, Proprietor of Caffe-Amante which operates out of Manalapan.

Mr. Garcia decided to commence the program on his birthday, today, and leave the program open-ended. He continued: “I figure as long as people are conscious to give us direction where they want us to donate, we’ll just keep it going. We’re blessed throughout the entire year so there’s no reason to only give during the holiday season.”

Caffe-Amante.com has designed a plan of giving where everyone that places an order through their website http://www.caffe-amante.com with the passcode ACS”, will result in a donation of 7% to the American Cancer Society.

All that’s required from the customers are the passcode; Caffe-Amante will take it from there. Not only will they send the donation, they will also email the customer when and how much was donated on their behalf for their own verification.

Additional information can be found at their blog: http://caffeamante.wordpress.com

Caffe-Amante is a small Gourmet Coffee Roaster and Tea company that roasts top grade coffee beans to order. Coffee is roasted, packaged and shipped within 24 hours so there’s no shelf life or inventory. They also sell exquisite Gourmet Teas, unique tea-pots and small gift sets.

Mr. Garcia can be reached at 732-984-1330 or by email: caffeamante@optonline.net

#   #    #    #


Talk about batting 1000: Jury convicts Bryant on ALL 12 counts of bribery and fraud

Once in a while there really IS justice in the Soprano State!


7% pledge to charity of YOUR choice with every order. CLICK HERE to order your Roasted to order Gourmet coffee from Caffe-amante: for the Cofee Lover in you.   For the Office or for the home Roasted to order… Roasted, packaged and shipped withing 24 hours! NJ’s own Caffe-amante.com


Visit courierpostonline.com/Bryant for full coverage of the trial.

Former state Sen. Wayne Bryant was found guilty of all 12 counts of bribery and pension fraud Tuesday, convictions that could send him to prison for years.

A jury of six men and six women deliberated for over parts of three days before finding the veteran legislator guilty of selling his office for personal gain and inflating his state pension with work he did not perform.

Bryant’s co-defendant, Dr. Michael Gallagher, was found guilty of all but one count of carrying out the bribery scheme with Bryant and also faces prison time.

Attorneys for both men, who contended before the trial began that the prosecution overstepped its bounds in bringing criminal charges in this case.

The case emanated from a part-time job that Bryant obtained at the School of Osteopathic Medicine in Stratford, where Gallagher was dean, in 2003.

The government alleged that the ”community outreach” job was phony, mere camouflage for the real reason the school was paying the senator $35,000 a year: To buy his influence in Trenton.

Through testimony and documentation, the office of the U.S Attorney laid out its case that in the years before Bryant joined the payroll at the School of Osteopathic Medicine he secured no money for the school, but in the three years following his hire he steered more than $10 million the school’s way.

His job at the medical school consisted of little more than showing up on Tuesday morning and ”reading the newspapers,” several employees at the school testified.

But as chairman of the powerful Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, the government demonstrated to the jury’s satisfaction, Bryant managed to add $2.3 million to the school’s budget almost immediately and to follow that up with an extra $800,000 for a child support program run by the school and another $200,000 for a program for the elderly.

Read the rest here

Other headlines:

After verdict, Christie calls Bryant ‘disgrace’

Ex-peers say Bryant case shows need for ethics reforms


Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

For all those Obama supporters that are employed (probably not many as a percentage): I hope you start to see the light and ask: What in the world did we just do??

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating   401(k)s, IRAs


FundRaisingearn up to 50% Gourmet Tea and Coffee
Are you a PTA member, team manager, Sport Association Board member? Church Member?…..
Gourmet Tea and Gourmet Coffee roasted to order FUND-RAISING OPPORTUNITIES: EARN UP TO 50% WITH OUR program TAILORED just for you, visit us HERE.


By Karen McMahan

November 04, 2008

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for
the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan
accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,”
blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to
conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”   Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only
increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social
Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality
Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to
save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever
for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax
breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions
are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are
available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”   All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying
Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions.
Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts.

For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their owncontributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to
sustain a savings plan.”
She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the
four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government”
was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of
equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw”
in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file
income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),
” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and
performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an
economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members
were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a
Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in
public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital
markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate
profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure
retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement
accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with
Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says
only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.