McCain proposes to end safeguards on catfish imports

MBJ: Catfish industry ’stunned’ by McCain proposal


WASHNGTON — A proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to repeal a law making all catfish safer for American consumers ignores numerous findings of banned substances in imported catfish products and favors inadequate food safety requirements, according to Catfish Farmers of America.

“It is stunning that Sen. McCain has chosen to protect importers and Vietnamese farmers over the health and safety of American citizens,” said Butch Wilson, newly elected president of the Catfish Farmers of America.

The U.S. Congress voted to move catfish inspections and regulation from the FDA to USDA as part of the 2008 Farm Bill.

A bill proposed by McCain and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) would repeal the 2008 regulation.
 


In a statement announcing the bill, McCain alleged the “Food and Drug Administration hasn’t reported any safety or health problems with the Vietnamese imports.”

That is wrong, according to the CFA. The FDA has found in imported catfish from Vietnam and other nations potentially dangerous chemicals or drugs that are banned by the United States in farm-raised catfish, according to the FDA.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last month a major criminal case of mislabeling and hazardous contaminants found in Vietnamese frozen catfish fillets imported by a seafood import company in McCain’s home state of Arizona, the CFA says.

Update: Senator Lugar of Indiana changes his tune on House spending cuts bill in the Senate

Update: GOP Sen. Lugar says he'll support House Republican spending cuts


Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who faces a Tea Party-backed challenge in his 2012 primary, has withdrawn his stated opposition to House-passed spending cuts.

Lugar said Tuesday afternoon that he made a mistake when he told reporters earlier in the day that he would oppose H.R. 1, the House GOP plan to cut an additional $57 billion from the 2011 budget.

“I’m going to vote with the Republicans on the issue when H.R. 1 comes up,” Lugar said. “If it’s strictly an affirmative vote, I will be for H.R. 1 because all the Republicans will be voting for H.R. 1.”

Lugar said he does not like the “formulation” of the spending cuts passed by the House and would like Congress to go even further to cut the deficit.


Republican Sen. Lugar to oppose House GOP's $61B spending cuts

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the most senior member of the Senate Republican conference, said Tuesday he will oppose the House-passed proposal to make drastic cuts to the federal budget.

He is the first Senate Republican to publicly state his opposition to a plan that Democrats have blasted as “reckless.”

Lugar, who is facing a Tea Party-backed challenge in the 2012 Indiana Republican primary, is taking a political risk. But he and other centrist Republicans have concerns about steep spending cuts that will eliminate funding for some federal programs in mid-year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pledged to schedule an up-or-down vote on the House-passed plan to put centrists on the record about whether they support it or not.

“The plan the Tea Party pushed through the House is an irresponsible plan,” Reid said Tuesday. “It’s a reckless plan. It’s dangerous for the health of our economy and certainly the citizens of our great country.”

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has criticized cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that benefits many constituents in his home state, where the temperature plummets in the wintertime.

The House bill would eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood. It would also cut substantially from the federal nutrition program for women, children and infants.

House GOP readies bill to prohibit EPA from regulating carbon emissions

Acting on a vow to fight the Obama administration on climate issues, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, unveiled draft legislation Wednesday to try to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the subcommittee on energy and power, joined Upton in issuing what they called the Energy Tax Prevention Act.

In a statement, the congressmen said the legislation's intent is to show that the Clean Air Act was not meant to address climate change, stop the EPA "from imposing a backdoor cap-and-trade tax" on industries identified as polluters, and protect American jobs.

"We firmly believe federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting national climate change policy," the statement said.

The EPA issued a finding in late 2009 that said greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming endanger the public's health and welfare. Last month, the agency told industrial facilities such as power plants, oil refineries and paper mills that require permits to emit sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide to also account for greenhouse gas emissions if they expand or add construction that significantly increases greenhouse gas pollution.

Republicans, many of whom doubt climate-change science, say the regulations hurt the ability of U.S. manufacturers to compete against companies in countries with relaxed standards.

The EPA has its foot "squarely on the neck of business," Upton has said. Republicans say the Obama administration is trying to use tougher EPA regulations on energy to overcome the president's failure to pass climate-change legislation.

Read More: House GOP readies bill to prohibit EPA from regulating carbon emissions

S510 now being considered in Senate could radically change small farms and food markets

Tea Party Fuels Born-Again Earmark Opponents

Tuesday's Republican vote on imposing an earmark moratorium was a direct response to the rising influence of Tea Party conservatives in the Senate. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the de facto leader of the Tea Party Senate caucus, said "the significance of this policy victory cannot be overstated" in an e-mail to supporters.


But a close look at Tuesday's voice vote to impose a non-binding moratorium on earmarks not only showcases the Tea Party's clout in the Senate this year, but its significant influence in GOP primary politics in 2012 and beyond.

Several Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2012 and who have previously sought millions in earmarks reversed course on Tuesday to vote for the measure -- a move for some that was undoubtedly intended to shore up their right flank in 2012. And even newly elected moderate Republican senators, like Illinois' Mark Kirk and New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, backed the measure, an indication that the politics of opposing earmarks is now viewed in the GOP as a clear political winner.

"Part of a politician's DNA is to talk out of both sides of their mouths," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that opposes earmarks. "So it's not surprising that they have put their fingers into the political wind and sensed it has changed directions on earmarks."

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R) is another surprising supporter of the moratorium. A veteran appropriator, Wicker requested $384 million worth of earmarks in 2010, in a state that's relied on federal funds for its military bases and shipyards, among other projects. But he's up for re-election in 2012, and his support of the moratorium is probably with a primary challenger in mind.


HL

Hedgecock: Democrats Want to Destroy Fiorina and Angle

by Roger Hedgecock

This much we know.

Carly Fiorina overcame a competitive field to decisively win the California Republican Senate primary election, earning the right to compete against incumbent Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer in the November election.

Sharron Angle came from way behind to win decisively in the Nevada Republican primary election, earning the right to compete against incumbent Democrat Sen. Harry Reid in November.

What is not yet publicly known is the scorched-earth negative campaigns already beginning against both of these Republican women.

Hints in recent weeks have made it clear that the Democrats will not only campaign to retain these Senate seats, they will launch an immediate, relentless personal assault designed to destroy both women's reputations personally and politically.

What the liberal elites cannot stand about both women goes far beyond disagreement over their political views.

Both women were endorsed by Sarah Palin. Palin's endorsement in these races and others (notably Nikki Haley) made a positive difference. By contrast, Obama's endorsement didn't help Arlen Specter, or John Corzine, Creigh Deeds or Martha Coakley and only Bill Clinton saved Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.

Why does Palin and everything she says and does provoke such a torrent of bile and abuse from the left? It’s because she is a successful, powerful woman who is definitely not a liberal feminist, and because she is an authentic American women of her time.

Palin is a success in her career, while she is also a mother facing the kind of difficulties in her family that sound all too real to many American families. She lives the daily juggling act that liberal feminists only write about.

Worse yet for the liberal elites in government, academia, and the media, she is politically powerful because she is authentic.

I witnessed Palin's appeal firsthand at the Tea Party Express rally in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nev. On a cold, wind-swept day in the high desert before a crowd of nearly 30,000, Sarah Palin was introduced to a standing ovation.

But then something extraordinary happened. Women in the audience rushed the stage, many holding up Palin's book and all chanting "Sarah, Sarah." When was Nancy Pelosi last (or ever) greeted this way?

The gap between arrogant ruling liberal elites and "We the People," which fueled the Tea Party movement in the first place, has never been more apparent than when comparing the Botox phony feminist with a real accomplished American woman.

So get ready Carly and Sharron. The tornado of bitter, mean, false labels and charges is just beginning.

In Fiorina's case, Boxer has already previewed the witch's brew. According to Senator (don't call me ma'am) Boxer, Fiorina, as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, deliberately outsourced American jobs overseas, violated environmental standards and gouged her employees and the consuming public in a greedy drive to amass an obscene fortune while she, Barbara Boxer, by contrast has devoted her life to public service and the public good. Translation: Carly has actually created thousands of private sector jobs.

As for Sharron Angle, if you listen to Reid's paid shills in Nevada, she's a right-wing nut who would dismantle all the successful, necessary agencies of government and is backed by gun-toting militias full of Timothy McVeigh wannabes.

Apparently, Angle has the temerity to question the effectiveness of the federal Department of Education, and other monuments to wasteful, failed (and unconstitutional) liberal programs. And Americans who understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment do support her. Reid will soon find out that those supporters include the majority of Nevadans.

But beyond being prepared for the liberal smear machine, both Fiorina and Angle have a golden opportunity to unleash a secret weapon—the truth.

The truth is the U.S. cannot borrow its way to prosperity, our indebtedness to China is not an asset, and government "stimulus" is not creating good jobs. In short, Obama's campaign of HOPE has produced anxiety and despair and the CHANGE is widely seen as destroying jobs.

Hard times caused by failing Obama policies championed by Boxer and Reid cannot be forever masked by extending unemployment benefits.

Beyond telling the truth (You know, folks, the Emperor has no clothes), these candidates—and all who would win in November—need to tell us what needs to be done. What would they propose as an alternate to the failing policies now in place?

What real reforms would actually make the American healthcare system work better at a lower cost to more people? Could putting more power in the hands of patients be the beginning of a better plan than Obamacare, which starts by putting all power and choice in the hands of the government?

What is the proper role of government regulation now that the most regulated parts of the economy (banks, insurance and oil companies, for example) have experienced the most failure while the least regulated parts of the economy (Apple, for example) are the only good news we have.

Now that we know that the open border policy pursued by George Bush is also the policy of President Obama—and with equally disastrous results—what would these two candidates, if elected to the U.S. Senate, offer as an alternative? Our national security as well as the nation’s sovereignty hangs in the balance on this issue.

In foreign policy, now that bowing to foreign despots and apologizing for America has not brought greater security but rather emboldened America's enemies to new levels of atrocity, is “Peace Through Strength” an idea whose time has come again ?

Nikki Haley has shown that personal attacks can be turned to an advantage, and I wish Carly and Sharron the same success in the coming mud-slinging season,

More importantly these women have the opportunity to re-state the vision that inspired generations of Americans: Liberty guarded by a limited government, low taxes, an opportunity society anchored in personal responsibility, a free-market economy spreading the wealth to all who choose to earn it.

With this vision, the candidates win and the country wins too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Hedgecock is a nationally-syndicated radio talk host. Visit http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/ . The Roger Hedgecock Show is syndicated on the Radio America network.

The 1099 Insurrection

The White House fights an effort to ease a burden on small business

You might not have seen it reported, but the Senate will vote this morning on whether to repeal part of ObamaCare that it passed only months ago. The White House is opposed, but this fight is likely to be the first of many as Americans discover—as Nancy Pelosi once famously predicted—what's in the bill.

The Senate will vote on amendments to the White House small business bill that would rescind an ObamaCare mandate that companies track and submit to the IRS all business-to-business transactions over $600 annually. Democrats tucked the 1099 reporting footnote into the bill to raise an estimated $17.1 billion, part of the effort to claim that ObamaCare reduces the deficit by $100 billion or so.

But this "tax gap" of unreported business income is largely a Beltway myth, and no less than the Treasury Department's National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson says the costs will be "disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance."

Meanwhile, small businesses are staring in horror toward 2013, when the 1099 mandate will hit more than 30 million of them. Currently businesses only have to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase from vendors and the like. Under the new rules, they'll have to report the value of goods and merchandise they purchase as well, adding vast accounting and paperwork costs.

Think about a midsized trucking company. The back office would have to collect hundreds of thousands of receipts from every gas station where its drivers filled up and figure out where it spent more than $600 that year. Then it would also need to match those payments to the stations' corporate parents.

Most Democrats now claim they were blindsided and didn't understand the implications of the 1099 provision—which is typical of the slapdash, destructive way the bill was written and passed. As the critics claimed, most Members had no idea what they were voting on. Some 239 House Democrats voted to dump the 1099 provision in August, and the repeal would have passed except Speaker Pelosi rigged the vote procedurally so it needed a two-thirds majority. She thus gave Democrats the cover of a repeal vote without actually repealing it.

In the Senate today, Nebraska Republican Mike Johanns will offer his amendment to scrap the new 1099 rules altogether. But the White House is opposing this because it fears it would set a precedent for repealing the larger health bill. Over the weekend the Treasury Department pronounced the Johanns amendment "not acceptable in its current form."

Yesterday the White House endorsed a competing proposal from Florida Democrat Bill Nelson that would increase the 1099 threshold to $5,000 and exempt businesses with fewer than 25 workers. Yet this is little more than a rearguard action in favor of the status quo; the Nelson amendment leaves the basic architecture unchanged while making the problem more complex.

Businesses would still have to track all purchases, not knowing in advance which contractors will exceed $5,000 at the end of the year. It also creates a marginal barrier to job creation—for a smaller firm, hiring a 26th employee would be extremely costly. The Nelson amendment also includes new taxes on domestic oil production, as every Democratic bill now seems to do.

As of yesterday, no one was sure if either amendment would get 60 votes, though Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is cosponsoring the Johanns version. Enough Democrats may bend to White House wishes and produce a stalemate, but this issue won't go away. The President's opposition to a clean repeal shows the hollowness of his alleged support for small business, which he expresses at every campaign stop but is less a priority than preserving his health-care legacy.

The larger political story here is that ObamaCare is already under bipartisan siege—and in the same Congress that passed it. The 1099 provision is only one plank, but repealing the law plank by plank may be the right strategy. Sooner or later the whole thing becomes unworkable. Voters should watch this vote to see who's really on the side of small business.

WSJ

Byrd Dead at 92

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Member in history, died at 3 a.m. Monday after a brief hospital stay. He was 92.

“I am saddened that the family of U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., tearfully announces the passing of the longest serving member of Congress in U.S. history,” Byrd’s office said in a statement.

In a separate statement Sunday afternoon, his office said Byrd had been hospitalized after suffering from heat exhaustion and dehydration. He was described as being “seriously ill."

Byrd, who was first elected to the Senate in 1958, was President Pro Tem, a largely ceremonial post but one that put him third in succession to the presidency.

Read more at Roll Call

Senator Kyl: Administration holding border security "hostage" until it is combined with immigration reform (Video)

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, "The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, "In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with 'comprehensive immigration reform.'"





Immigration

TEA Party Victories show organization has worked

TEA Party participants nationwide have taken a beating from late night comedians, Democrat name callers, and even the President. But, recent events in Utah, Florida and now, Kentucky, prove that the organization has worked. And, come November, that bodes well for some historic changes.

In Tea Party Victory, Rand Paul Takes Ky. Senate Primary

WASHINGTON – Rand Paul, one of the early leaders of the Tea Party movement, won the Republican nomination for Senate from Kentucky Tuesday night, delivering a powerful blow to the party’s establishment and offering the clearest evidence yet of the strength of the anti-government sentiment simmering at the grass-roots level.

Mr. Paul, the son of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, easily defeated Trey Grayson, the Secretary of State from Kentucky. Kentucky voters turned against Mr. Grayson even though he had the support of the state’s best-known political leader – Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader.

The result appeared less a rebuke of Mr. McConnell – who by most indications remains popular in his home—than a message to the political establishment in Washington. Mr. Paul’s campaign was specifically directed against what he said were the abuses of Washington insiders in the form of excessive spending and government regulation, as he gave voice to the Tea Party movement

It remains to be seen how big a difference Tea Party support means in a general election; many Democrats, and some Republicans, believe that Mr. Paul’s views are enough out-of-the-mainstream to make him an easier target than Mr. Grayson against the Democratic nominee in the fall.

Still, it is the latest development suggesting the sway of the Tea Party movement in the Republican Party. It followed the defeat of an incumbent Republican senator, Robert Bennett of Utah, by conservative forces in that state. And it came after the recent decision by Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida to drop out of the Republican primary for Senate in the face of a surge by a Tea Party favorite, Marco Rubio.

The early verdict in Kentucky came on one of the most active political nights since the presidential election of 2008, one that was being watched nervously in Washington signs of just how strong the anti-incumbent winds are blowing across the country.

Read the entire story at The New York Times

MISSISSIPPI CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION AGAIN RALLIES TO SUPPORT DISASTER DECLARATION

Delegation Supports Aid to Recover from Damage Caused by May 1 Tornadoes and Flooding

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Members of the Mississippi congressional delegation have again rallied to support the state of Mississippi’s request for a presidential disaster declaration to aid victims of floods and tornadoes that tore through north Mississippi earlier this month.

U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker and U.S. Representatives Bennie Thompson, Gene Taylor, Travis Childers and Gregg Harper today sent President Obama a letter endorsing the disaster declaration application submitted by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to the White House late last week.

The state’s request seeks a federal disaster declaration for six north Mississippi counties where tornadoes on May 1 and subsequent flooding killed six people and damaged hundreds of homes. The Governor’s initial application would cover Alcorn, Benton, Lafayette, Prentiss, Tippah and Tishomingo counties.

Regarding the May 1 tornado damages, the Mississippi lawmakers wrote: “The latest estimates show that 6 Mississippi lives have been lost and nearly 250 residences were destroyed or have major damage and 482 homes received minor damage. Much of this destruction has occurred in parts of our state that have been particularly affected by our nation’s current economic situation. Many of these counties have poverty levels that are more than double the national average.”

“We stand ready to face this new challenge by supporting the local communities, the State, and your administration as we work together to rebuild and renew areas destroyed by this major storm,” the delegation stressed in its correspondence to the President.

The lawmakers, who also backed Barbour’s application for federal assistance following a massive tornado on April 23-24 that killed 10 Mississippians, thanked President Obama for approving that request and making federal assistance available to the state.

Members of the congressional delegation have been consulting with Barbour, the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency and local officials regarding recovery efforts and outstanding needs in the damaged region. The issuance of a presidential disaster declaration, as requested by the state, would trigger the release of federal disaster assistance and resources.

MISSISSIPPI DELEGATION UNITED IN SUPPORT FOR DISASTER DECLARATION

Federal Lawmakers Endorse Barbour Request for Disaster Aid Following Tornadoes

WASHINGTON, D.C. – All members of the Mississippi congressional delegation today signaled their united support for approval of a federal disaster designation that would sanction federal recovery resources to help Mississippians recover from a deadly storm that tore across the state Saturday, killing 10 people and destroying scores of homes.

The delegation today sent President Obama a letter endorsing the disaster application submitted by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. The letter was signed by U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker and U.S. Representatives Bennie Thompson, Gene Taylor, Travis Childers and Gregg Harper.

“We know from our ongoing recovery from the effects of Hurricane Katrina, which hit our state in August 2005, that significant resources and cooperation are necessary to recover fully from natural disasters as quickly as possible. We stand ready to face this new challenge by supporting the local communities, the State, and your administration as we work together to rebuild and renew areas destroyed by this major storm,” the lawmakers wrote to the President.

The letter also notes the ongoing economic hardship of the affected areas, as well as the need for Congress to replenish funding for the Disaster Recovery Fund administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A supplemental appropriations bill pending before Congress would add $5.1 billion to the FEMA fund.

Members of the congressional delegation have been consulting with Barbour, the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency and local officials as recovery efforts get underway. The issuance of a presidential disaster declaration, as requested by the state, would trigger the release of federal disaster assistance. Barbour’s initial federal disaster declaration request would encompass Choctaw and Yazoo counties, with other Mississippi counties expected to be added as damage assessments across the state are compiled.

The following is the text of the congressional delegation’s letter to the President:

Dear President Obama,

In the wake of devastating weather events across the Southeastern United States this past weekend, we are writing to request your full consideration of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s request for a federal disaster declaration for Yazoo County, Mississippi and Choctaw County, Mississippi.

We also understand that the State of Mississippi and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) jointly continue to assess the damage across the state, particularly in Attala, Holmes Monroe, Union, and Warren Counties. It is our understanding that Governor Barbour will request a federal disaster declaration in Holmes County sometime today. Should Governor Barbour request federal disaster declarations for these or other counties, we are hopeful you will also give these requests your full consideration.

We have been encouraged by the efforts of FEMA to deploy rapidly to Mississippi to assist state and local officials in estimating the severity of the initial damage caused by a series of tornado touchdowns, some rated as devastating as EF-4. The latest estimates show that 10 Mississippi lives have been lost and hundreds homes have been destroyed. Much of this destruction has occurred in parts of our state that have been particularly affected by our nation’s current economic situation. Many of these counties have poverty levels that are more than double the national average.

Examination of National Weather Service data shows that these tornado touchdowns were some of the most extreme in Mississippi’s history. Preliminary estimations show that one of the touchdowns was 1.75 miles wide at some points and stayed touched down for 149 miles, carving a path of destruction across the heart of our state. If these estimates hold, this storm event will lay claim to the widest tornado in Mississippi’s history and the fourth longest touchdown distance in our state’s history.

We know from our ongoing recovery from the effects of Hurricane Katrina, which hit our state in August 2005, that significant resources and cooperation are necessary to recover fully from natural disasters as quickly as possible. We stand ready to face this new challenge by supporting the local communities, the State, and your administration as we work together to rebuild and renew areas destroyed by this major storm.

We are also very aware of the depleted status of the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund and the potential effect a disaster declaration for this past weekend’s events in Mississippi could have on its solvency. We are hopeful that the Disaster Relief Fund will be replenished as soon as possible so that federal assistance for this and other disasters can flow freely to states in need.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need further assistance in this effort.

Williams: Taxes and Voting

According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., research organization, nearly half of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. That's up from the Tax Foundation's 2006 estimate that 41 percent of the American population, or 121 million Americans, were completely outside the federal income tax system. These Americans pay no federal income tax either because their incomes are too low or they have higher income but credits, deductions and exemptions that relieve them of tax liability. This lack of income tax liability stands in stark contrast to the top 10 percent of earners, those households earning an average of $366,400 in 2006, who paid about 73 percent of federal income taxes. The top 25 percent paid 86 percent. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of federal income taxes collected.

Let's not dwell on the fairness of such an arrangement for financing the activities of the federal government. Instead, let's ask what kind of incentives and results such an arrangement produces and ask ourselves whether these results are good for our country. That's a question to be asked whether or not one has federal income tax liabilities.

Having 121 million Americans completely outside the federal income tax system, it's like throwing chum to political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-spending politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about deficits, how much Congress spends and the level of taxation? Political calls for tax cuts and spending restraints have little appeal. Survey polls revealed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350-billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes. Tax cuts to many Americans mean just one thing: They pose a threat to the federal handouts they receive.

Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company?Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.


This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."

Town Hall

DNC to pour money into midterms while RNC Chairman Steele's downward spiral affects GOP message

Politico is reporting that the DNC and President Obama are preparing to pour in large sums of cash to buy the November midterms. This is a good sign that the Dems are scared of the potential loss of seats this November, and that they are fully aware that the new Health Care Law provided them little to no bounce. If anything it is becoming more of an albatross as the days pass.

The Democratic National Committee will contribute more than $50 million in cash and services for November’s midterm elections, a top Democratic official tells POLITICO.

The payments — for House, Senate and governor’s races — will start in June. Aides are negotiating the split between cash and services.

The report also indicates that the Republican National Committee will be far behind in spending due to the lack of leadership from Chairman Michael Steele.

GOP campaign committees are preparing to get less cash from the Republican National Committee than in the past, in part because big donors are frustrated with the leadership of Chairman Michael Steele.

Steele's most recent decision to speak at Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference has only added fuel to what is now a very big fire.

Expected CMS Nomination Is Next Step in Health Care Debate

The anticipated nomination of a noted Harvard University scholar to head the agency overseeing Medicare and Medicaid is likely to reignite the health care debate when Congress returns in two weeks from its spring recess.

A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the administration plans to nominate Donald M. Berwick to become the new administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

A clinical professor of pediatrics and health policy at Harvard Medical School, Berwick founded the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in 1991 to identify and foster best practices in medicine that would save lives and reduce suffering.

If confirmed, he would take over the long-vacant CMS post as the agency prepares to impose hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare cost reductions mandated by the new health care overhaul law, as well as undertake an expansion of Medicaid.

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee signaled that Berwick would face tough scrutiny at his confirmation hearing.

CQ Politics

Senate makes changes, returns reconciliation bill to House

The Associated Press

Senate Republicans learned early Thursday that they will be able to kill language in a measure altering President Obama's newly enacted health care overhaul, meaning the bill will have to return to the House for final congressional approval.

It was initially unclear how much of a problem this posed for Democrats hoping to rush the bill to Obama and avoid further congressional votes on what has been a politically painful ordeal for the party. Democrats described the situation as a minor glitch, but did not rule out that Republicans might be able to remove additional sections of the bill.

The president, who signed the landmark legislation into law on Tuesday, was flying to Iowa later in the day for the first of many appearances he will make around the country before the fall congressional elections to sell his health care revamp. Obama was appearing in Iowa City, where as a presidential candidate in 2007 he touted his ideas for health coverage for all.

His trip comes with polls showing people are divided over the law he signed Tuesday, and Democratic lawmakers from competitive districts hoping he can convince more voters by November that it was the right move.

As an exhausted Senate labored past 2 a.m. on a stack of GOP amendments, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told reporters that Republicans consulting with the chamber's parliamentarian had found "two minor provisions" that violate Congress' budget rules. The provisions deal with Pell grants for low-income students.

The Catholic Failure

From March 22nd post on The New Ledger Blog:

The roster of names is so long that its recitation would be a total rebuke to the authority of any American Catholic bishop now living and many dead. Kennedy, Leahy, Kucinich, Drinan, Durbin, Pelosi, Casey (Jr.), Mitchell, Sebelius, Cuomo, I could go on. These are men and women who have made it the goal of their careers to advocate the abortion license, to preserve it and expand it. The leaders in the fight to keep public funding of abortion were overwhelmingly self-professed Catholics. Last night, they succeeded.


They teach by word and act that abortion is, at worst, an unfortunately necessary convenience, and is more often a good. They create scandal. They do so as Catholics.

Who among them has been publicly remonstrated by his bishop? Who among them has had to stand in public and choose between an honest recitation of the Nicene Creed and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Who among them has been reminded of Christ’s injunction about scandal and millstones where their audiences and constituencies can hear?

Why would anyone expect Bart Stupak — otherwise a consummate Democrat — to hold up a health care reform bill against his Party and his Party’s President when even the men who are supposed to stand against evil every waking moment of their lives appear more concerned about the environment, about immigrant rights, about the death penalty? What Catholic sitting in the pews or watching on TV would think there’s anything wrong with abortion when Mario Cuomo’s dishonest justification has stood without censure or excommunication for over a quarter of a century?

The blood of millions will now be shed by the public coffers. That blood lies on the hands of the men with mitres.

Read the entire post at The New Ledger

Health Care for ALL Americans . . . except senior officials and their staff

New Ledger writer and blogger Ben Domenech writes of a little discussed portion of the recent Health Care Legislation that exempts "senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans."

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans — that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details — or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices. It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” — meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process — last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

For his part Senator Chuck Grassley is renewing his efforts to show the Democratic Leaders hypocrisy for what it is.

Grassley says health care reform should apply to President Obama, top administration officials


WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said he will offer an amendment during Senate debate on the health care reconciliation bill this week to apply the reform legislation to the President, Vice President, cabinet members and top White House staff.

“It’s pretty unbelieveable that the President and his closest advisors remain untouched by the reforms they pushed for the rest of the country. In other words, President Obama’s health care reform won’t apply to President Obama,” Grassley said. “Last December, the effort to apply any new law to administration political leaders was rejected by the Senate Majority Leader. But there’s no justification for the double standard, and I’ll continue to work to establish fairness.”

The Senate legislation passed last night by the House of Representatives includes an amendment Grassley sponsored and got adopted by the Finance Committee last fall to have members of Congress and their staffs get their health insurance through the same health insurance exchanges where health plans for the general public would be available. During the closed-door negotiations on the bill late last year, the Senate Majority Leader carved out Senate committee and leadership staff from this requirement.

Subsequently, Grassley and Senator Tom Coburn attempted to offer another amendment to restore the requirement during Senate debate on the health care bill, but the Senate Majority Leader would not let their amendment to fix this loophole even come up for a vote. In addition to Senate committee and leadership staff, the amendment Grassley and Coburn filed during the Senate debate would have made the President, the Vice President, top White House staff and cabinet members all get their health insurance through the newly created exchanges. It would not have applied to federal employees in the civil service.

Grassley said, “It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

Grassley said the motivation for his amendments is simple: public officials who make the laws or lead efforts to have laws changed should live under those laws.

“This is the same principle that motivated me to pursue legislation over 20 years ago to apply civil rights, labor and employment laws to Congress,” Grassley said. Before President Clinton signed into law Grassley’s long-sought Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, Congress had routinely exempted itself.

The Congressional Accountability Act made Congress subject to 12 laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Veteran’s Employment and Reemployment Rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989.

Today, Grassley is working to make sure Congress lives up to the same standards it imposes on others with legislation such as his Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act.

The GOP health care count: 209 no, 204 yes, 18 undecided

There are two ways to count votes for the Democrats' national health care plan. The first is to tally the lawmakers who are definitely yes or leaning yes. The second is to count the ones who are definitely no and leaning no.

From the Republican side, it's the second group that matters. Just like Democrats need 216 votes to pass the bill, Republicans and their Democratic allies need 216 to stop it. I just got off the phone with a well-placed House GOP source, and the Republicans' latest count is that there are 209 votes against the bill at this moment, leaving opponents seven short of being able to defeat it. By the same count, there are 204 votes for the bill, leaving the Democratic leadership 12 short of being able to pass it. There are 18 votes thought to be undecided.

This is the way it breaks down. There are 431 members of the House, 253 Democrats and 178 Republicans. All the Republicans oppose the bill. At the moment, GOP sources believe that more than 30 -- they think it's 31 -- Democrats are opposed. Those Democrats are motivated by a variety of concerns. "It's abortion, it's cost control, it's taxes, it's Medicare, and for some of them, it's just their district," says the GOP source.

Of the 18 Democrats who are undecided, Republicans will have to win seven votes to prevail, provided Republicans do in fact have 209 votes now. The Democratic leadership would have to win over 12 undecideds, if in fact Democrats are at 204 now.

"If you're trying to win a vote like this, you never want to be in the situation where you have to get virtually everybody who's still left in the pool," says the source. "That's difficult. They have to get two-thirds, and that's a lot."

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Mississippi Senators Vote To Keep Earmark Spending

If Congress gives up the responsibility to direct spending then who gets all that authority? The White House. No thanks. This is a knee jerk reaction by the GOP and they should stop and think about what they're giving up in order to be popular. READ the DAMN Constitution folks!

U.S. Senator Thad Cochran is one the most profilic users of earmark spending. The U.S. Senate has decided to vote down a proposed earmark spending ban. MPB’s Phoebe Judge reports on the reaction from two of the greatest users of earmark spending, Mississippi’s own U.S. Senators.

Mississippi’s senior senator republican Thad Cochran led the senate with just under $500 million dollars in earmarks in this year’s spending bills. The proposed ban would have created a one year moratorium on earmark spending, a practice which opponents often describe as pork spending, meaning senators sending federal money back to their home states for their pet projects. But Senator Cochran says it is their constitutional responsibility to make known how federal dollars should be spent,

“To say that the Congress shouldn’t have the power to direct federal dollars to be spent in specific ways is an abrogation of congressional power that is vested in the constitution in the Congress.”

Only 15 Republicans joined the majority of Democrats in voting down the moratorium, including Senator Cochran, and Mississippi’s junior Senator Roger Wicker. Wicker said in a statement, that while he was in favor shrinking the federal budget once spending levels are determined, 'elected officials should be able to direct spending to projects with the most need and potential for economic impact.'

Last week House Republicans did impose an earmark ban, and House Democrats declared earmark spending should not longer go to for profit companies.

 

MPB