/PRNewswire/ -- Ordering federal employees to work during a government shutdown violates the U.S. Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the nation's largest federal employee union.
The American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry are named as defendants.
The lawsuit contends that the Obama administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and Thirteenth Amendment by requiring federal civilian employees to work without pay during a period of lapsed federal appropriations.
"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to work during a shutdown, and there's no guarantee that Congress will keep the administration's promise to pay those employees once the shutdown is over," AFGE National President John Gage said.
Section 1341 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal and D.C. government workers from spending or obligating funds that have not already been appropriated by Congress.
The administration claims that it can require certain employees to work during a shutdown under Section 1342 of Title 31, which includes a clause covering "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
However, AFGE's lawsuit contends that this section of U.S. Code is not a valid exception to the prohibition on incurring debts during a shutdown because it is not an appropriations law and does not empower federal agencies to force Congress to pay for debts incurred during a shutdown.
"The Constitution requires an appropriation by Congress before federal dollars can be spent, no exceptions," Gage said. "Without an appropriation, the agencies simply can't spend money or incur debts by forcing employees to work."
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 625,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Press falsely credits Republicans with "deep cuts"
The mainstream press is falsely crediting Republicans for proposing "deep cuts" in federal spending. To fight back, the Libertarian Party is promoting its "Republican Wall of Shame" with an online ad in the Washington Post.
Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said, "I can't believe the press is saying Republicans are making deep cuts. It's just false."
On February 20, the Associated Press wrote, "The Republican-led House has approved a spending bill with deep cuts that Democrats call unacceptable."
On February 21, the New York Times wrote, "...the Republicans' fervor for the deep cuts adopted by the House."
On March 5, an NPR caption read, "The House was debating the continuing resolution (HR 1) that contained Republican-proposed deep cuts in the budget."
On March 8, the Los Angeles Times really went overboard: "For some, the House-passed GOP budget plan, with the deepest spending cuts in generations, goes too far in slashing jobs and programs."
Hinkle continued, "This phrase, 'deep cuts,' keeps appearing. But it's just comical to describe the Republican budget plan as 'deep cuts.' It would be more accurate to say 'microscopic cuts,' or even 'no cuts.' It's a spending bill that will result in discretionary spending of $1.356 trillion this year. That's higher than last year's $1.349 trillion. When did higher spending become a cut?"
Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict said, "Sure, Republicans want to attack a handful of Democratic pet projects. That's such a narrow sliver of the budget that it doesn't matter. It's political game-playing. It won't do anything to address our large-scale fiscal disaster."
Benedict continued, "Republicans and Democrats constantly try to pretend that they're on opposite sides of a huge chasm. Unfortunately, the mainstream press cooperates and hypes up that false notion. In fact, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them."
Overall federal spending is expected to be 7 percent higher this year than last year, even with all of the Republican "cuts" in HR 1.
To help set the record straight, the Libertarian Party is promoting its "Republican Wall of Shame." The Libertarian Party has purchased online ad space in the Washington Post, to help inform the public that Republican rhetoric about "cutting government" is hypocrisy.
Benedict continued, "One of my pet peeves is hearing all this nonsense about Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan being a budget-cutter. Paul Ryan is a typical big-government Republican. He supported the giant Medicare expansion in 2003, the hugely expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expensive No Child Left Behind Act, the TARP bailouts, and on and on. Paul Ryan is one of the prominent Republicans featured on our Wall of Shame."
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said, "I can't believe the press is saying Republicans are making deep cuts. It's just false."
On February 20, the Associated Press wrote, "The Republican-led House has approved a spending bill with deep cuts that Democrats call unacceptable."
On February 21, the New York Times wrote, "...the Republicans' fervor for the deep cuts adopted by the House."
On March 5, an NPR caption read, "The House was debating the continuing resolution (HR 1) that contained Republican-proposed deep cuts in the budget."
On March 8, the Los Angeles Times really went overboard: "For some, the House-passed GOP budget plan, with the deepest spending cuts in generations, goes too far in slashing jobs and programs."
Hinkle continued, "This phrase, 'deep cuts,' keeps appearing. But it's just comical to describe the Republican budget plan as 'deep cuts.' It would be more accurate to say 'microscopic cuts,' or even 'no cuts.' It's a spending bill that will result in discretionary spending of $1.356 trillion this year. That's higher than last year's $1.349 trillion. When did higher spending become a cut?"
Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict said, "Sure, Republicans want to attack a handful of Democratic pet projects. That's such a narrow sliver of the budget that it doesn't matter. It's political game-playing. It won't do anything to address our large-scale fiscal disaster."
Benedict continued, "Republicans and Democrats constantly try to pretend that they're on opposite sides of a huge chasm. Unfortunately, the mainstream press cooperates and hypes up that false notion. In fact, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them."
Overall federal spending is expected to be 7 percent higher this year than last year, even with all of the Republican "cuts" in HR 1.
To help set the record straight, the Libertarian Party is promoting its "Republican Wall of Shame." The Libertarian Party has purchased online ad space in the Washington Post, to help inform the public that Republican rhetoric about "cutting government" is hypocrisy.
Benedict continued, "One of my pet peeves is hearing all this nonsense about Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan being a budget-cutter. Paul Ryan is a typical big-government Republican. He supported the giant Medicare expansion in 2003, the hugely expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expensive No Child Left Behind Act, the TARP bailouts, and on and on. Paul Ryan is one of the prominent Republicans featured on our Wall of Shame."
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Ron and Rand Paul Introduce “Audit the Fed” Legislation in House and Senate
(BUSINESS WIRE)--Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul, today (January 26) introduced companion legislation in both chambers of the United States Congress to require a full and thorough audit of the Federal Reserve.
The bills, both titled The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, but known better as “Audit the Fed,” are numbered H.R. 459 in the House and S. 202 in the Senate and continue the efforts championed by Ron Paul last year that won 320 co-sponsors before passing the House and 32 cosponsors in the Senate before falling short on a floor vote.
H.R. 459 starts the session with 56 original bipartisan cosponsors, while Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) are original cosponsors for S. 202.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 would open up the Fed’s funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility to Congressional oversight and audit by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office. Additionally, audits would include discount window operations, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks such as ongoing dollar swap operations with European central banks.
Public polling conducted by Rasmussen Reports in December 2010 indicated that 74 percent of the American People demand transparency at the Fed and support a full audit as called for in the Audit the Fed legislation. In 2009 and 2010, Campaign for Liberty generated over 2.5 million grassroots contacts to federal lawmakers in support of Audit the Fed.
“The Federal Reserve and its loose money, easy credit policies are the culprit for so many of the dire economic problems we face. Americans continue to demand transparency at the Federal Reserve, and Campaign for Liberty is proud to lead the fight to make this legislation the Law of the Land,” said Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. “All across the country, grassroots citizens are uniting behind Ron and Rand Paul and will demand this audit, this year.”
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
The bills, both titled The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, but known better as “Audit the Fed,” are numbered H.R. 459 in the House and S. 202 in the Senate and continue the efforts championed by Ron Paul last year that won 320 co-sponsors before passing the House and 32 cosponsors in the Senate before falling short on a floor vote.
H.R. 459 starts the session with 56 original bipartisan cosponsors, while Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) are original cosponsors for S. 202.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 would open up the Fed’s funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility to Congressional oversight and audit by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office. Additionally, audits would include discount window operations, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks such as ongoing dollar swap operations with European central banks.
Public polling conducted by Rasmussen Reports in December 2010 indicated that 74 percent of the American People demand transparency at the Fed and support a full audit as called for in the Audit the Fed legislation. In 2009 and 2010, Campaign for Liberty generated over 2.5 million grassroots contacts to federal lawmakers in support of Audit the Fed.
“The Federal Reserve and its loose money, easy credit policies are the culprit for so many of the dire economic problems we face. Americans continue to demand transparency at the Federal Reserve, and Campaign for Liberty is proud to lead the fight to make this legislation the Law of the Land,” said Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. “All across the country, grassroots citizens are uniting behind Ron and Rand Paul and will demand this audit, this year.”
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Friday, January 21, 2011
Members of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project Call for New Approach to Transportation Funding
/PRNewswire/ -- A new report released today, authored by two members of the Bipartisan Policy Center's (BPC) National Transportation Policy Project, called on the Administration and Congress to change their approach to transportation policy saying that "the nation can no longer afford to support poorly targeted investments when the needs are so great and public resources are so constrained." The report authors, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Martin Wachs, spoke at a press conference to release the report in Washington, D.C.
"The future of transportation policy is central to economic policy. Despite what has long been argued, investments in transportation infrastructure are not guaranteed to create jobs and simultaneously grow the economy. We must ruthlessly focus on economic growth, immediately and in the future," said Dr. Holtz-Eakin. "The need for investment is clear: our roads are deteriorating and our transportation systems are not equipped to handle increasing capacity. Still, we cannot devote additional dollars, much less borrowed dollars, to transportation programs that provide an uncertain number of jobs and no lasting economic benefit."
The report, Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth, outlines three specific policy changes the Administration and Congress can make to ensure that scarce public dollars are spent wisely and, at the same time, create employment opportunities in the short-term and contribute to the nation's economic recovery in the long-term.
First, the report recommends that no new funds be allocated to existing transportation programs if they provide questionable job-creation, unclear long-term benefits or if the programs are solely an effort to increase short-term employment. Second, investments should be directed to programs that are both "shovel-ready" and provide long-term benefits. These investments can help ease unemployment while also building the nation's economic future. Finally, federal transportation investments should not be constrained by the silos and restrictions that dominate the federal government's existing surface transportation program. "Instead of focusing on how the money is spent – that is, on whether funds go to operations versus capital or to highway versus transit – the focus must shift to the outcomes being achieved with a particular expenditure," said the report. "If the most pressing outcomes at this point in time relate to job creation and long-term economic recovery, both of those outcomes should drive decisions about how to allocate federal resources and measure progress."
"In addition to addressing long-term transportation-related objectives including safety, energy independence, and environmental sustainability, Congress should consider investments that result in higher productivity," said Dr. Wachs. "These investments will improve economic well-being by increasing connectivity and accessibility to jobs while reducing congestion. Ideally, there is an approach to transportation investment that advances both goals - enduring productivity gains and immediate job creation. To do this, there must be flexibility within the system to pursue the highest returns on spending."
The BPC's National Transportation Policy Project is a group dedicated to reforming federal surface transportation policy in a way that ensures federal investments are held accountable for demonstrating results toward the achievement of national goals. Its members include former Republican and Democratic members of Congress, local-elected officials, business and civic leaders, and transportation stakeholders and experts. The project released its blueprint for surface transportation reform, Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy, in June 2009.
"We have repeatedly argued that not all transportation investments are equally effective, and that future transportation spending must be driven by considerations of economic merit and guided by clearly articulated federal goals, including economic growth, metropolitan accessibility, environmental protection and energy security, and safety," said JayEtta Hecker, Director of Transportation Advocacy at the BPC. "The report released today emphasizes the need for long-term returns rather than just short-term gains."
Read the full report at http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/research/transportation-investments.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
"The future of transportation policy is central to economic policy. Despite what has long been argued, investments in transportation infrastructure are not guaranteed to create jobs and simultaneously grow the economy. We must ruthlessly focus on economic growth, immediately and in the future," said Dr. Holtz-Eakin. "The need for investment is clear: our roads are deteriorating and our transportation systems are not equipped to handle increasing capacity. Still, we cannot devote additional dollars, much less borrowed dollars, to transportation programs that provide an uncertain number of jobs and no lasting economic benefit."
The report, Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth, outlines three specific policy changes the Administration and Congress can make to ensure that scarce public dollars are spent wisely and, at the same time, create employment opportunities in the short-term and contribute to the nation's economic recovery in the long-term.
First, the report recommends that no new funds be allocated to existing transportation programs if they provide questionable job-creation, unclear long-term benefits or if the programs are solely an effort to increase short-term employment. Second, investments should be directed to programs that are both "shovel-ready" and provide long-term benefits. These investments can help ease unemployment while also building the nation's economic future. Finally, federal transportation investments should not be constrained by the silos and restrictions that dominate the federal government's existing surface transportation program. "Instead of focusing on how the money is spent – that is, on whether funds go to operations versus capital or to highway versus transit – the focus must shift to the outcomes being achieved with a particular expenditure," said the report. "If the most pressing outcomes at this point in time relate to job creation and long-term economic recovery, both of those outcomes should drive decisions about how to allocate federal resources and measure progress."
"In addition to addressing long-term transportation-related objectives including safety, energy independence, and environmental sustainability, Congress should consider investments that result in higher productivity," said Dr. Wachs. "These investments will improve economic well-being by increasing connectivity and accessibility to jobs while reducing congestion. Ideally, there is an approach to transportation investment that advances both goals - enduring productivity gains and immediate job creation. To do this, there must be flexibility within the system to pursue the highest returns on spending."
The BPC's National Transportation Policy Project is a group dedicated to reforming federal surface transportation policy in a way that ensures federal investments are held accountable for demonstrating results toward the achievement of national goals. Its members include former Republican and Democratic members of Congress, local-elected officials, business and civic leaders, and transportation stakeholders and experts. The project released its blueprint for surface transportation reform, Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy, in June 2009.
"We have repeatedly argued that not all transportation investments are equally effective, and that future transportation spending must be driven by considerations of economic merit and guided by clearly articulated federal goals, including economic growth, metropolitan accessibility, environmental protection and energy security, and safety," said JayEtta Hecker, Director of Transportation Advocacy at the BPC. "The report released today emphasizes the need for long-term returns rather than just short-term gains."
Read the full report at http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/research/transportation-investments.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer: ObamaCare is Wrong for Arizona and Wrong for America - Federal Hearing Tuesday
/Standard Newswire/ -- "Arizona has a long and proud history of fighting the Washington, D.C. elite's insatiable appetite for bigger government at the cost of States' rights. The battle over the Affordable Care Act better known as "ObamaCare" is the latest round. Once again, the feds have gone too far.
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
FAMM Hails Elimination of First Mandatory Minimum Since Nixon Administration
/PRNewswire/ -- Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed landmark legislation to dramatically reduce the sentencing disparity between federal crack and powder cocaine sentences and to repeal the five-year mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine. The bill, S. 1789, already won unanimous approval from the Senate in March and now goes to the White House for President Obama's certain signature. Its passage marks the first time that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum drug sentence since the Nixon administration.
"Members of both parties deserve enormous credit for moving beyond the politics of fear and simply doing the right thing," said Julie Stewart, founder and President of FAMM. "For those of us who have been pushing for reform for nearly 20 years, today's vote is phenomenal. To see members of Congress come together on such a historically partisan issue like this during an election year is heartening.
"The 100-to-1 disparity was an ugly stain on the criminal justice system," Stewart continued. "Nobody will mourn its passing - least of all, the thousands of individuals and families FAMM has worked with over the past 20 years that have been directly impacted.
"I am hopeful that the forces of reason and compassion that carried the day today will prevail again soon to apply the new law retroactively to help those already in prison for crack cocaine offenses," Stewart concluded.
While S. 1789 will not eliminate the mandatory minimum for trafficking crack cocaine, it will substantially reduce racial disparity in cocaine sentencing. The infamous 100-to-1 sentencing ratio will be reduced to 18 to 1. Moving forward, 28 grams of crack cocaine will trigger a five-year prison sentence and 280 grams of crack will trigger a 10-year sentence. Once enacted, the law could affect an estimated 3,000 cases annually, reducing sentences by an average of about two years and saving an estimated $42 million over five years. The bill does not provide any relief for people in prison serving crack cocaine sentences because it does not provide for retroactivity. The bill also provides for enhanced sentences for drug offenses involving vulnerable victims, violence and other aggravating factors.
For more detailed information about the history of the federal crack disparity and the changes that will result for S. 1789, go to the following link at FAMM's web site: www.famm.org.
Families Against Mandatory Minimums is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization supporting fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety. For more information on FAMM, visit www.famm.org.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"Members of both parties deserve enormous credit for moving beyond the politics of fear and simply doing the right thing," said Julie Stewart, founder and President of FAMM. "For those of us who have been pushing for reform for nearly 20 years, today's vote is phenomenal. To see members of Congress come together on such a historically partisan issue like this during an election year is heartening.
"The 100-to-1 disparity was an ugly stain on the criminal justice system," Stewart continued. "Nobody will mourn its passing - least of all, the thousands of individuals and families FAMM has worked with over the past 20 years that have been directly impacted.
"I am hopeful that the forces of reason and compassion that carried the day today will prevail again soon to apply the new law retroactively to help those already in prison for crack cocaine offenses," Stewart concluded.
While S. 1789 will not eliminate the mandatory minimum for trafficking crack cocaine, it will substantially reduce racial disparity in cocaine sentencing. The infamous 100-to-1 sentencing ratio will be reduced to 18 to 1. Moving forward, 28 grams of crack cocaine will trigger a five-year prison sentence and 280 grams of crack will trigger a 10-year sentence. Once enacted, the law could affect an estimated 3,000 cases annually, reducing sentences by an average of about two years and saving an estimated $42 million over five years. The bill does not provide any relief for people in prison serving crack cocaine sentences because it does not provide for retroactivity. The bill also provides for enhanced sentences for drug offenses involving vulnerable victims, violence and other aggravating factors.
For more detailed information about the history of the federal crack disparity and the changes that will result for S. 1789, go to the following link at FAMM's web site: www.famm.org.
Families Against Mandatory Minimums is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization supporting fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety. For more information on FAMM, visit www.famm.org.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, June 4, 2010
Statement by the President on the Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees
“Last year, I issued a Presidential Memorandum that instructed the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State to extend certain available benefits they had identified to gay & lesbian federal employees and their families under their respective jurisdictions. Among those benefits were long-term care insurance and expanded sick leave for civil service employees and medical care abroad, eligibility for employment at posts, cost-of-living adjustments abroad and medical evacuation for domestic partners of foreign service members. In that same Memorandum, I called upon the federal agencies to undertake a comprehensive review and to identify any additional benefits that could be extended to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees under existing law. That process has now concluded, and I am proud to announce that earlier today, I signed a Memorandum that requires Executive agencies to take immediate action to extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees a number of meaningful benefits, from family assistance services to hardship transfers to relocation expenses. It also requires agencies that extend any new benefits to employees’ opposite-sex spouses to make those benefits available on equal terms to employees’ same-sex domestic partners to the extent permitted by law.
While this Memorandum is an important step on the path to equality, my Administration continues to be prevented by existing Federal law from providing same-sex domestic partners with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That is why, today, I renew my call for swift passage of an important piece of legislation pending in both Houses of Congress—the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. This legislation, championed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, would extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees the full range of benefits currently enjoyed by Federal employees’ opposite-sex spouses. I look forward to signing it into law.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
While this Memorandum is an important step on the path to equality, my Administration continues to be prevented by existing Federal law from providing same-sex domestic partners with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That is why, today, I renew my call for swift passage of an important piece of legislation pending in both Houses of Congress—the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. This legislation, championed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, would extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees the full range of benefits currently enjoyed by Federal employees’ opposite-sex spouses. I look forward to signing it into law.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Congress Should Stimulate Economy With $500 Billion in Private Investment By Temporarily Reducing U.S. Business Taxes on Foreign Earnings
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The quest for cash to jumpstart the ailing U.S. economy could be alleviated if congress would revisit the 2004 successful economic stimulus measure that enabled U.S. businesses to invest $360 billion of foreign earnings at a temporary, reduced tax rate of 5.25%. In a new study commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), renowned economist Dr. Allen Sinai of Decision Economics, Inc. analyzed the benefits that would occur based on an estimated $545 billion of repatriations, similar to the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA). Sinai concludes that the U.S. economy would see a substantial boost in investment in plants and equipment and R&D, leading to higher U.S. GDP and job generation. He also projects nearly $140 billion in tax revenue over five years for the U.S. Treasury - money it would not otherwise receive.
"Unlike many of the stimulus proposals that bear a high price tag, this is a virtual free lunch that congress, the new administration and taxpayers can easily digest," said ACCF President and CEO Mark Bloomfield. "This temporary tax reduction can provide a lift to the U.S. business sector, significantly improve the financial position of nonfinancial corporations, and help relieve the tight credit and liquidity restraint for a number of companies."
Sinai's quantitative study concludes that temporarily reinstating an 85% dividends-received-deduction for repatriated foreign subsidiary earnings would lead to the following economic benefits:
-- Increased U.S. GDP, peaking at an additional $110 billion in 2010
-- Reduction in outstanding debt, which would improve credit availability
-- An average annual increase of $56 billion in new investment over the
next 5 years
-- Increased U.S. R&D spending by approximately $7 billion per year over
the next five years
-- Job generation within the U.S. economy peaking at 614,000 in 2011
-- Nearly $140 billion in tax revenue over five years from initial cash
investment and residual economic activity
ACCF also pointed to a survey of U.S. companies that utilized the 2004 AJCA and found, on average, that 25% of the funds repatriated were used for U.S. capital investment, 23% for hiring and training of U.S. employees, 15% for U.S.-based R&D, and 13% for U.S. debt reduction. Another survey indicated repatriating companies increased their total investments in the United States by over $230 billion compared to prior years.
"This temporary tax reduction would provide much needed cash flow for capital spending, R&D, strengthening corporate balance sheets, new jobs and produce gains for the overall economy," said ACCF Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Margo Thorning. "This is a true win-win alternative to placing further strains on the federal budget and Federal Reserve."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Unlike many of the stimulus proposals that bear a high price tag, this is a virtual free lunch that congress, the new administration and taxpayers can easily digest," said ACCF President and CEO Mark Bloomfield. "This temporary tax reduction can provide a lift to the U.S. business sector, significantly improve the financial position of nonfinancial corporations, and help relieve the tight credit and liquidity restraint for a number of companies."
Sinai's quantitative study concludes that temporarily reinstating an 85% dividends-received-deduction for repatriated foreign subsidiary earnings would lead to the following economic benefits:
-- Increased U.S. GDP, peaking at an additional $110 billion in 2010
-- Reduction in outstanding debt, which would improve credit availability
-- An average annual increase of $56 billion in new investment over the
next 5 years
-- Increased U.S. R&D spending by approximately $7 billion per year over
the next five years
-- Job generation within the U.S. economy peaking at 614,000 in 2011
-- Nearly $140 billion in tax revenue over five years from initial cash
investment and residual economic activity
ACCF also pointed to a survey of U.S. companies that utilized the 2004 AJCA and found, on average, that 25% of the funds repatriated were used for U.S. capital investment, 23% for hiring and training of U.S. employees, 15% for U.S.-based R&D, and 13% for U.S. debt reduction. Another survey indicated repatriating companies increased their total investments in the United States by over $230 billion compared to prior years.
"This temporary tax reduction would provide much needed cash flow for capital spending, R&D, strengthening corporate balance sheets, new jobs and produce gains for the overall economy," said ACCF Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Margo Thorning. "This is a true win-win alternative to placing further strains on the federal budget and Federal Reserve."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Saturday, December 13, 2008
PrimeRevenue Sees $50 Billion Benefit for Big Three and Suppliers With Government-Backed Finance Option
(BUSINESS WIRE)--PrimeRevenue described a program today outlining how a US government-backed initiative could provide 18 to 24 months or more in operational cashflow for the Big Three and their US-based direct suppliers. The value of the supply chain finance program, which could be deployed within a few weeks, is highlighted by recent published reports of automotive suppliers seeking cash advance payment on receivables in light of the current financial turmoil in the industry.
The program’s operation is based upon an underlying federal guarantee of Big Three payables to their direct suppliers. Unlike a loan, this guarantee would act as a ‘backstop’ to the Big Three’s payables, effectively honoring payment of those obligations in the event of a default. Private sector financial institutions would rely on the government guarantee to fund the early payment of receivables at rates highly favorable to the suppliers, providing a working capital improvement opportunity for both sides of the supply chain relationship.
“The US automotive industry has been deeply affected by the current turmoil in the credit markets,” said Joe Juliano, CEO of PrimeRevenue, “While not a panacea, Supply Chain Finance can be implemented quickly to support the liquidity needs of US auto companies and their suppliers, while at the same time unlocking significant bank funding, to help buy the time necessary to make these businesses successful again.”
James D. Robinson III, former Chairman and CEO of American Express Company, and General Partner, RRE Ventures is a board member of PrimeRevenue. In supporting the program, Mr. Robinson stated, “Supply Chain Finance provides a meaningful complement to solutions on the table today. Together with other government and industry initiatives, this approach directly can help the auto suppliers and the Big Three generate immediate working capital.”
A Supply Chain Finance (SCF) platform is a secure website that links payment information between companies, their suppliers, and financial institutions. Companies publish their payables information to the platform, well in advance of the payment maturity date. Suppliers access the website to view their receivables. If they wish, suppliers may select receivables to be paid in advance of the maturity date. Early payment requests are paid by third-party banks, directly to the supplier’s bank account, less a financing fee. In the case of a government-backed SCF program, financing rates would be extremely attractive as Big Three payables would be guaranteed by the US Treasury.
PrimeRevenue has forwarded information regarding its Supply Chain Finance approach to Congress, the Treasury and others.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The program’s operation is based upon an underlying federal guarantee of Big Three payables to their direct suppliers. Unlike a loan, this guarantee would act as a ‘backstop’ to the Big Three’s payables, effectively honoring payment of those obligations in the event of a default. Private sector financial institutions would rely on the government guarantee to fund the early payment of receivables at rates highly favorable to the suppliers, providing a working capital improvement opportunity for both sides of the supply chain relationship.
“The US automotive industry has been deeply affected by the current turmoil in the credit markets,” said Joe Juliano, CEO of PrimeRevenue, “While not a panacea, Supply Chain Finance can be implemented quickly to support the liquidity needs of US auto companies and their suppliers, while at the same time unlocking significant bank funding, to help buy the time necessary to make these businesses successful again.”
James D. Robinson III, former Chairman and CEO of American Express Company, and General Partner, RRE Ventures is a board member of PrimeRevenue. In supporting the program, Mr. Robinson stated, “Supply Chain Finance provides a meaningful complement to solutions on the table today. Together with other government and industry initiatives, this approach directly can help the auto suppliers and the Big Three generate immediate working capital.”
A Supply Chain Finance (SCF) platform is a secure website that links payment information between companies, their suppliers, and financial institutions. Companies publish their payables information to the platform, well in advance of the payment maturity date. Suppliers access the website to view their receivables. If they wish, suppliers may select receivables to be paid in advance of the maturity date. Early payment requests are paid by third-party banks, directly to the supplier’s bank account, less a financing fee. In the case of a government-backed SCF program, financing rates would be extremely attractive as Big Three payables would be guaranteed by the US Treasury.
PrimeRevenue has forwarded information regarding its Supply Chain Finance approach to Congress, the Treasury and others.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)