/PRNewswire/ -- Five Democratic Senators today gave back-to-back speeches on the Senate floor discussing the need to focus on small businesses when considering health care reform. Without the right reforms, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, according to a report by the Small Business Majority. The Senators made the following comments:
"Without the worry of high health costs, small businesses will be able to get back to what they do best: creating jobs, encouraging entrepreneurship, growing our economy and keeping our nation competitive in the global arena," U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Chair Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said. "Today, it is more important than ever for us in Congress to work together to bring about these needed health care reforms and help small businesses."
"If we do nothing, small businesses are going to see this escalator of costs go up for health insurance. Small businesses should be able to negotiate with insurance companies to drive down the costs of their health plans," Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington said. "That's why we need to give small business the same kind of negotiating power that large companies have to negotiate for benefits."
"Small businesses are essential to our economy, and we must control health care costs and relieve the financial burden facing so many small businesses in New Hampshire and across the nation," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. "I urge my colleagues to work together to pass comprehensive health reform legislation because employers should not have to choose between keeping their doors open and offering health care to their employees."
"If we do not pass health insurance reform, small business owners will continue to see the cost of providing healthcare coverage to their employees eat away at their bottom line. In my home state of Colorado, premium costs for small businesses are projected to more than double over the next decade," Sen. Udall of Colorado said. "These unsustainable cost increases not only harm current businesses, but they also prevent the growth of new ones. Enacting meaningful health reform is necessary for ensuring productive small businesses, new American jobs, and a strong economy."
"Today, small businesses are the only group who still pay retail for their health care coverage," said Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. "With fewer employees, they lack the bargaining power of large firms and pay as much as 18 percent more for the same health insurance as larger companies. But if we do health care reform right, it will give small businesses and their employees more affordable options."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Showing posts with label senators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senators. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Senators Express Concern With Number of Czars in Administration
/PRNewswire/ -- In a letter to the President, Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, questions the number of "czars" within the Executive Office. In the letter, Senator Collins expresses concern that the growing number of czars may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress. The letter was also signed by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Bob Bennett (R-UT).
The full text of the letter is as follows:
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write to express our growing concern with the proliferation of "czars" in your Administration. These positions raise serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight. The creation of "czars," particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of "advise and consent," greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions.
To be clear, we do not consider every position identified in various reports as a "czar" to be problematic. Positions established by law or subject to Senate confirmation, such as the Director of National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, do not raise the same kinds of concerns as positions that you have established within the Executive Office of the President that are largely insulated from effective Congressional oversight. We also recognize that Presidents are entitled to surround themselves with experts who can serve as senior advisors.
Many "czars" you have appointed, however, either duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress has conferred upon Cabinet-level officers and other senior Executive branch officials. When established within the White House, these "czars" can hinder the ability of Congress to oversee the complex substantive issues that you have unilaterally entrusted to their leadership. Whether in the White House or elsewhere, the authorities of these advisors are essentially undefined. They are not subject to the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role, including the Senate's careful review of the character and qualifications of the individuals nominated by the President to fill the most senior positions within our government. Indeed, many of these new "czars" appear to occupy positions of greater responsibility and authority than many of the officials who have been confirmed by the Senate to fill positions within your Administration.
With these concerns in mind, we have identified at least 18 "czar" positions created by your Administration whose reported responsibilities may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress or express statutory assignments of responsibility to other Executive branch officials. With regard to each of these positions, we ask that you explain:
-- the specific authorities and responsibilities of the position,
including any limitations you have placed on the position to ensure
that it does not encroach on the legitimate statutory responsibilities
of other Executive branch officials;
-- the process by which the Administration examines the character and
qualifications of the individuals appointed by the President to fill
the position; and,
-- whether the individual occupying the position will agree to any
reasonable request to appear before, or provide information to,
Congress.
We also urge you to refrain from creating similar additional positions or making appointments to any vacant "czar" positions until you have fully consulted with the appropriate Congressional committees.
Finally, we ask that you reconsider your approach of centralizing authority at the White House. Congress has grappled repeatedly with the question of how to organize the federal government. We have worked to improve the Department of Homeland Security and bring together the disparate law enforcement, intelligence, emergency response, and security components that form its core. We established the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the activities of the 16 elements of the Intelligence Community, breaking down barriers to cooperation that led to intelligence failures before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The bipartisan review by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee of the failures associated with the response to Hurricane Katrina led to fundamental reforms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, improving our nation's preparedness and ability to respond to disasters. In each of these cases, the Congress's proposed solution did not consolidate power in a single czar locked away in a White House office. Instead, working in a bipartisan fashion, we created a transparent framework of accountable leaders with the authorities necessary to accomplish their vital missions.
If you believe action is needed to address other failures or impediments to successful coordination within the Executive branch, we ask that you consult carefully with Congress prior to establishing any additional "czar" positions or filling any existing vacancies in these positions. We stand ready to work with you to address these challenges and to provide our nation's most senior leaders with the legitimacy necessary to do their jobs - without furthering the accountability, oversight, vetting, and transparency shortcomings associated with "czars."
Sincerely,
Susan M. Collins
U.S. Senator
Lamar Alexander
U.S. Senator
Christopher S. Bond
U.S. Senator
Mike Crapo
U.S. Senator
Pat Roberts
U.S. Senator
Robert F. Bennett
U.S. Senator
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The full text of the letter is as follows:
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write to express our growing concern with the proliferation of "czars" in your Administration. These positions raise serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight. The creation of "czars," particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of "advise and consent," greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions.
To be clear, we do not consider every position identified in various reports as a "czar" to be problematic. Positions established by law or subject to Senate confirmation, such as the Director of National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, do not raise the same kinds of concerns as positions that you have established within the Executive Office of the President that are largely insulated from effective Congressional oversight. We also recognize that Presidents are entitled to surround themselves with experts who can serve as senior advisors.
Many "czars" you have appointed, however, either duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress has conferred upon Cabinet-level officers and other senior Executive branch officials. When established within the White House, these "czars" can hinder the ability of Congress to oversee the complex substantive issues that you have unilaterally entrusted to their leadership. Whether in the White House or elsewhere, the authorities of these advisors are essentially undefined. They are not subject to the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role, including the Senate's careful review of the character and qualifications of the individuals nominated by the President to fill the most senior positions within our government. Indeed, many of these new "czars" appear to occupy positions of greater responsibility and authority than many of the officials who have been confirmed by the Senate to fill positions within your Administration.
With these concerns in mind, we have identified at least 18 "czar" positions created by your Administration whose reported responsibilities may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress or express statutory assignments of responsibility to other Executive branch officials. With regard to each of these positions, we ask that you explain:
-- the specific authorities and responsibilities of the position,
including any limitations you have placed on the position to ensure
that it does not encroach on the legitimate statutory responsibilities
of other Executive branch officials;
-- the process by which the Administration examines the character and
qualifications of the individuals appointed by the President to fill
the position; and,
-- whether the individual occupying the position will agree to any
reasonable request to appear before, or provide information to,
Congress.
We also urge you to refrain from creating similar additional positions or making appointments to any vacant "czar" positions until you have fully consulted with the appropriate Congressional committees.
Finally, we ask that you reconsider your approach of centralizing authority at the White House. Congress has grappled repeatedly with the question of how to organize the federal government. We have worked to improve the Department of Homeland Security and bring together the disparate law enforcement, intelligence, emergency response, and security components that form its core. We established the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the activities of the 16 elements of the Intelligence Community, breaking down barriers to cooperation that led to intelligence failures before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The bipartisan review by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee of the failures associated with the response to Hurricane Katrina led to fundamental reforms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, improving our nation's preparedness and ability to respond to disasters. In each of these cases, the Congress's proposed solution did not consolidate power in a single czar locked away in a White House office. Instead, working in a bipartisan fashion, we created a transparent framework of accountable leaders with the authorities necessary to accomplish their vital missions.
If you believe action is needed to address other failures or impediments to successful coordination within the Executive branch, we ask that you consult carefully with Congress prior to establishing any additional "czar" positions or filling any existing vacancies in these positions. We stand ready to work with you to address these challenges and to provide our nation's most senior leaders with the legitimacy necessary to do their jobs - without furthering the accountability, oversight, vetting, and transparency shortcomings associated with "czars."
Sincerely,
Susan M. Collins
U.S. Senator
Lamar Alexander
U.S. Senator
Christopher S. Bond
U.S. Senator
Mike Crapo
U.S. Senator
Pat Roberts
U.S. Senator
Robert F. Bennett
U.S. Senator
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Black Leader Urges Senate Scrutiny for Sotomayor Supreme Court Nomination - No Rubber Stamp for Controversial Nominee
With President Obama's nomination of U.S. Circuit Court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the vacancy being created by U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's impending retirement, Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is urging senators to take a very close look at her record before commenting on her fitness for the job.
"Of all the possible nominees suggested over the past few weeks, it appears Obama selected the most radical one," said Massie. "The U.S. Senate has a duty to scrutinize Judge Sotomayor's record to ensure she has the demeanor and aptitude to be elevated to such a solemn post."
Massie continued: "During the Bush Administration, it was common for liberal senators to demand a consensus nominee with broad political appeal. By selecting an avowed liberal in Sotomayor, it would appear Obama is not following the stipulation he and his former colleagues sought to impose upon his predecessor. This should open up the nomination to the scrutiny it justly deserves."
The Sotomayor nomination, Massie notes, is the perfect catalyst to begin a national debate on the appropriateness of "judicial activism" - when judges essentially cut lawmakers out of the legislative process and try to rule from the bench. For example, in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, Sotomayor said it was appropriate for a judge such as herself to use her "experiences as women and people of color" to "affect our decisions." In 2005, she told a crowd at the Duke University Law School that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made" - rather than by lawmakers beholden to voters.
Massie commented: "Considering Justice Souter's record, Sotomayor will not change the balance of the Supreme Court. But she will likely dramatically alter the temperament of the Court and the way in which it operates. Senators must keep this in mind as they take on the very solemn process of vetting her fitness."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Of all the possible nominees suggested over the past few weeks, it appears Obama selected the most radical one," said Massie. "The U.S. Senate has a duty to scrutinize Judge Sotomayor's record to ensure she has the demeanor and aptitude to be elevated to such a solemn post."
Massie continued: "During the Bush Administration, it was common for liberal senators to demand a consensus nominee with broad political appeal. By selecting an avowed liberal in Sotomayor, it would appear Obama is not following the stipulation he and his former colleagues sought to impose upon his predecessor. This should open up the nomination to the scrutiny it justly deserves."
The Sotomayor nomination, Massie notes, is the perfect catalyst to begin a national debate on the appropriateness of "judicial activism" - when judges essentially cut lawmakers out of the legislative process and try to rule from the bench. For example, in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, Sotomayor said it was appropriate for a judge such as herself to use her "experiences as women and people of color" to "affect our decisions." In 2005, she told a crowd at the Duke University Law School that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made" - rather than by lawmakers beholden to voters.
Massie commented: "Considering Justice Souter's record, Sotomayor will not change the balance of the Supreme Court. But she will likely dramatically alter the temperament of the Court and the way in which it operates. Senators must keep this in mind as they take on the very solemn process of vetting her fitness."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, February 9, 2009
Help us Stop 'America's INFLATION Stimulus Bill'
/Standard Newswire/ -- The so-called stimulus bill appears to be on the verge of passage following a "compromise" crafted by Republican Senators Specter and Collins and Democratic Senator Nelson. It demonstrates a stunning ignorance of how business works and how jobs are created. For example, in its over 1500 pages, there is not one single mention of increasing profits in American businesses, yet any business owner knows that sustained profits are the only way that businesses can expand and create new jobs. Without a clear focus on increasing profits, the long-term result of a huge increase in government spending can only be one thing: staggering inflation.
In addition to the economic issues, this massive inflation stimulus also raises three major moral
hazards:
1. Tens of millions of citizens who have retired on fixed
incomes will see their purchasing power erode
severely and their financial security collapse. Do we
want to bear moral responsibility for breaking trust
with our retirees who have worked so hard to achieve
financial security?
2. At the other end of the age spectrum, tens of
millions of young people will find their future dreams
thwarted by an oppressive tax system burdened by
repaying trillions of dollars of debt incurred just this
year. Economists say that this unprecedented public
borrowing could "crowd out" private capital that would
otherwise be used to expand existing businesses and
start new ones, thus shackling the next generation
with no-growth prospects.
3. President Obama's pledge of transparency in his
new Administration is rendered meaningless by
exempting this bill from the budget disciplines and
cost disclosure requirements of all other legislation.
By allowing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to assemble
this bill the old-fashioned way, larding it up with
economically unsound projects cynically included to
buy votes, the new President risks breaking faith with
the American people on a matter of moral as well as
political integrity - within his Administration's very first
month. These are not merely economic
considerations; they also present grave moral
hazards.
The bill as it stands is entirely government-centric. It assumes that government is the best or only financial act or capable of addressing the politically-motivated overextension of credit crisis and a housing market breakdown. Absent are incentives for the private sector to inject new capital into the economy.
This so-called stimulus bill contains more pork than a pig farm. President Obama has badly bobbled his first real legislative leadership opportunity and abdicated to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama originally proposed a massive infrastructure investment program. He should have stuck to it.
Providing infrastructure is a core function of government. It enjoys support from conservatives and liberals alike. Conservatives base their support on time-tested economic principles initially set forth by Adam Smith, the founding father of free market economics. He argued that government's proper role was to provide a permanent military for national defense, a police and court system to control crime and administer justice and a public works system to facilitate the flow of commerce along roads, bridges, and canals. Contemporary conservative legislators who may be budget hawks on most government spending are typically supportive of spending on
infrastructure. Our roads, bridges and railways are in a deplorable state of disrepair and deterioration.
Entirely new types of infrastructure, such as high-speed fiber and wireless data networks, should be developed to aid twenty-first century commerce and economic development in the same way that paved roads did two centuries ago or air transport did in the last century.
If President Obama had stuck to his original promise of enacting a stimulus plan focusing on job-creating infrastructure projects that were "shovel-ready" and just waiting for funding, he likely would have found many willing Republican allies. The result could have been a precedent-setting example of genuine bipartisanship. Instead, by abdicating his leadership role in setting the national agenda to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will probably sign a bill that would
be best described as "America's Inflation Stimulus," because it will be inflation, rather than job growth and infrastructure investment, that is most stimulated by it.
How many months will it be before we see inflation skyrocket from its current level of around 4% to 12% or more? The last time we saw an inflation rate that high was in 1980, and it was a major contributor to President Jimmy Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan.
The proposed package of pork is the largest spending bill in American history. Expressed in current dollars, it is roughly double the size of the entire New Deal, much of which really was infrastructure spending. It is likely to garner no more than a handful of Republican votes, largely because no Republican input was sought in the House, and only two Republican deal-making Senators were involved in reaching the Senate compromise.
For the new President, this is a tragic waste of an historic leadership opportunity. For the rest of us, it will result in the greatest transfer of debt to a succeeding generation in the history of the world. This is not the kind of change that Obama promised.
We invite you to join us in sending a clear message to your Senators that you simply will not tolerate their voting in favor of this bill.
Please click this link to go to our special online petition, which we will send to both of your state's United States Senators before the final vote:
www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopthestimulus/ (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102450445960&e=001HQvYu_KfJMXvGT48daAAjUWomuGepWNZurYz0Hmbo3g72JJPmiJ8UYt7FNmH
vMPwDIzbelnMtyNJ4EmvSZVK6HNd5_Uj3EzMqnxkRytuEhgzyoP3_yM1g32_MkwUevFO
mMqcMXl4ZvOEeus9qT5BeQPo3LiS8xG)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
In addition to the economic issues, this massive inflation stimulus also raises three major moral
hazards:
1. Tens of millions of citizens who have retired on fixed
incomes will see their purchasing power erode
severely and their financial security collapse. Do we
want to bear moral responsibility for breaking trust
with our retirees who have worked so hard to achieve
financial security?
2. At the other end of the age spectrum, tens of
millions of young people will find their future dreams
thwarted by an oppressive tax system burdened by
repaying trillions of dollars of debt incurred just this
year. Economists say that this unprecedented public
borrowing could "crowd out" private capital that would
otherwise be used to expand existing businesses and
start new ones, thus shackling the next generation
with no-growth prospects.
3. President Obama's pledge of transparency in his
new Administration is rendered meaningless by
exempting this bill from the budget disciplines and
cost disclosure requirements of all other legislation.
By allowing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to assemble
this bill the old-fashioned way, larding it up with
economically unsound projects cynically included to
buy votes, the new President risks breaking faith with
the American people on a matter of moral as well as
political integrity - within his Administration's very first
month. These are not merely economic
considerations; they also present grave moral
hazards.
The bill as it stands is entirely government-centric. It assumes that government is the best or only financial act or capable of addressing the politically-motivated overextension of credit crisis and a housing market breakdown. Absent are incentives for the private sector to inject new capital into the economy.
This so-called stimulus bill contains more pork than a pig farm. President Obama has badly bobbled his first real legislative leadership opportunity and abdicated to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama originally proposed a massive infrastructure investment program. He should have stuck to it.
Providing infrastructure is a core function of government. It enjoys support from conservatives and liberals alike. Conservatives base their support on time-tested economic principles initially set forth by Adam Smith, the founding father of free market economics. He argued that government's proper role was to provide a permanent military for national defense, a police and court system to control crime and administer justice and a public works system to facilitate the flow of commerce along roads, bridges, and canals. Contemporary conservative legislators who may be budget hawks on most government spending are typically supportive of spending on
infrastructure. Our roads, bridges and railways are in a deplorable state of disrepair and deterioration.
Entirely new types of infrastructure, such as high-speed fiber and wireless data networks, should be developed to aid twenty-first century commerce and economic development in the same way that paved roads did two centuries ago or air transport did in the last century.
If President Obama had stuck to his original promise of enacting a stimulus plan focusing on job-creating infrastructure projects that were "shovel-ready" and just waiting for funding, he likely would have found many willing Republican allies. The result could have been a precedent-setting example of genuine bipartisanship. Instead, by abdicating his leadership role in setting the national agenda to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will probably sign a bill that would
be best described as "America's Inflation Stimulus," because it will be inflation, rather than job growth and infrastructure investment, that is most stimulated by it.
How many months will it be before we see inflation skyrocket from its current level of around 4% to 12% or more? The last time we saw an inflation rate that high was in 1980, and it was a major contributor to President Jimmy Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan.
The proposed package of pork is the largest spending bill in American history. Expressed in current dollars, it is roughly double the size of the entire New Deal, much of which really was infrastructure spending. It is likely to garner no more than a handful of Republican votes, largely because no Republican input was sought in the House, and only two Republican deal-making Senators were involved in reaching the Senate compromise.
For the new President, this is a tragic waste of an historic leadership opportunity. For the rest of us, it will result in the greatest transfer of debt to a succeeding generation in the history of the world. This is not the kind of change that Obama promised.
We invite you to join us in sending a clear message to your Senators that you simply will not tolerate their voting in favor of this bill.
Please click this link to go to our special online petition, which we will send to both of your state's United States Senators before the final vote:
www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopthestimulus/ (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102450445960&e=001HQvYu_KfJMXvGT48daAAjUWomuGepWNZurYz0Hmbo3g72JJPmiJ8UYt7FNmH
vMPwDIzbelnMtyNJ4EmvSZVK6HNd5_Uj3EzMqnxkRytuEhgzyoP3_yM1g32_MkwUevFO
mMqcMXl4ZvOEeus9qT5BeQPo3LiS8xG)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)