/PRNewswire/ --The House of Representatives cleared a "bridge" appropriations measure early this morning that is expected to give negotiators time to write legislation that would fund the government through Sept. 30, after announcing an agreement on the larger package. The package bans taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia but continues to provide taxpayer subsidies to abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"We are pleased that negotiators have agreed to reinstate the long-standing law against taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, but abortion giant Planned Parenthood will continue to receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars in spite of its record of abusing innocent young victims and willingly covering up the horrors of sex trafficking.
"Contrary to assertions made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats, no family planning funds were ever threatened during this most recent budget debate. The proposed language simply says that if you provide abortions you can't get federal monies. In troubled economic times, taxpayers should not be subsidizing organizations that perform abortions. The money would much better serve recipients who do not have abortion as their central 'product.'
"We will continue to press Congress to adopt a 2012 budget that reflects the beliefs of most Americans who may disagree over abortion but broadly agree that they do not want their hard earned money going to abortion organizations.
"Our elected leaders should not be at a loss of words when it comes to protecting mothers and their unborn children from the horrific practice of abortion. We urge Congressional leaders to move forward with hearings to further expose and stop taxpayer funding of an organization that has been complicit in statutory rape cases, mishandled funds, and accepted donations for abortions with offensive racial overtones."
-----
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 government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Requiring Employees To Work During Shutdown Violates Law, Lawsuit Charges
/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
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
Libertarians call for permanent government shutdown
As elected officials put on a dog-and-pony media show about a temporary shutdown of small parts of the federal government, the Libertarian Party calls for a permanent shutdown of most of the federal government.
Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict said, "Just think how a permanent government shutdown would allow so many Americans to regain the blessings of liberty.
"Education would blossom as the Department of Education ended its War on Learning, no longer wasting our money and preventing educational innovation with one-size-fits-all centralized mandates.
"Job opportunities at companies big and small would multiply, providing opportunity and choice for American workers.
"The world would enjoy peace as we withdrew our forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Our government spends almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Millions of industrious men and women who work for the military and its contractors could be focusing on building up our economy, rather than tearing down others'.
"Crime would plummet as the government's War on Drugs ended, no longer sustaining a giant violent black market and overfilling our prisons.
"The life of many poorer Americans would improve as welfare programs stopped, no longer trapping low-income families in an endless cycle of government dependency.
"All Americans would feel a huge burden lifted every April, as they were no longer required to wrestle with a byzantine and oppressive IRS.
"But most importantly, Americans would once again be free of unjust and unconstitutional violations of their unalienable rights."
Benedict added, "We're not talking about eliminating the federal government. We want to end all federal activities that are not authorized by the Constitution, and we want to cut everything else as much as we can. In 2000, the federal government spent $1.8 trillion. This year it's expected to spend $3.8 trillion. Things are going the wrong way -- fast."
-----
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 Executive Director Wes Benedict said, "Just think how a permanent government shutdown would allow so many Americans to regain the blessings of liberty.
"Education would blossom as the Department of Education ended its War on Learning, no longer wasting our money and preventing educational innovation with one-size-fits-all centralized mandates.
"Job opportunities at companies big and small would multiply, providing opportunity and choice for American workers.
"The world would enjoy peace as we withdrew our forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Our government spends almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Millions of industrious men and women who work for the military and its contractors could be focusing on building up our economy, rather than tearing down others'.
"Crime would plummet as the government's War on Drugs ended, no longer sustaining a giant violent black market and overfilling our prisons.
"The life of many poorer Americans would improve as welfare programs stopped, no longer trapping low-income families in an endless cycle of government dependency.
"All Americans would feel a huge burden lifted every April, as they were no longer required to wrestle with a byzantine and oppressive IRS.
"But most importantly, Americans would once again be free of unjust and unconstitutional violations of their unalienable rights."
Benedict added, "We're not talking about eliminating the federal government. We want to end all federal activities that are not authorized by the Constitution, and we want to cut everything else as much as we can. In 2000, the federal government spent $1.8 trillion. This year it's expected to spend $3.8 trillion. Things are going the wrong way -- fast."
-----
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, April 1, 2011
Libertarians praise Congress on April Fool's Day
The Libertarian Party congratulates Congress for passing a budget that makes serious cuts in federal government spending, including the following:
1. Eliminating Department of Education programs, saving taxpayers more than $40 billion each year.
2. Getting rid of farm subsidies, saving over $20 billion each year.
3. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other overseas deployments, saving over $100 billion annually.
4. Eliminating programs and subsidies in the Department of Transportation, saving about $80 billion annually.
5. Terminating federal housing subsidies, saving about $45 billion each year.
6. Giving overpaid federal employees a 10% cut in compensation, saving $30 billion annually.
7. Throwing out federal energy subsidies, saving $20 billion annually.
8. Reducing and reforming Medicare and Medicaid, saving about $100 billion a year for the next ten years.
9. Ending the federal War on Drugs, saving $15 billion annually.
10. Phasing out mandatory Social Security, and reducing the rate of benefit growth to save $40 billion a year by 2020.
"April Fool's!" cried Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict. "Congress hasn't done any of those things. Congress is causing the federal government to keep growing rapidly. And don't be fooled by the recent hype about Republican proposals for 'cuts.' Those 'cuts' are so small and so peripheral, that even if they pass, they won't have any effect on the fiscal catastrophe facing our children and grandchildren. Republicans and Democrats continue to link arms and keep our federal government huge and growing."
Benedict continued, "We got that list of items from a Cato Institute advertisement that ran in several major news outlets today. Of course, we wish Congress would cut all those things, but we know Republicans and Democrats won't do it."
The Libertarian Party platform calls for major reductions in the size and scope of government.
-----
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
1. Eliminating Department of Education programs, saving taxpayers more than $40 billion each year.
2. Getting rid of farm subsidies, saving over $20 billion each year.
3. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other overseas deployments, saving over $100 billion annually.
4. Eliminating programs and subsidies in the Department of Transportation, saving about $80 billion annually.
5. Terminating federal housing subsidies, saving about $45 billion each year.
6. Giving overpaid federal employees a 10% cut in compensation, saving $30 billion annually.
7. Throwing out federal energy subsidies, saving $20 billion annually.
8. Reducing and reforming Medicare and Medicaid, saving about $100 billion a year for the next ten years.
9. Ending the federal War on Drugs, saving $15 billion annually.
10. Phasing out mandatory Social Security, and reducing the rate of benefit growth to save $40 billion a year by 2020.
"April Fool's!" cried Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict. "Congress hasn't done any of those things. Congress is causing the federal government to keep growing rapidly. And don't be fooled by the recent hype about Republican proposals for 'cuts.' Those 'cuts' are so small and so peripheral, that even if they pass, they won't have any effect on the fiscal catastrophe facing our children and grandchildren. Republicans and Democrats continue to link arms and keep our federal government huge and growing."
Benedict continued, "We got that list of items from a Cato Institute advertisement that ran in several major news outlets today. Of course, we wish Congress would cut all those things, but we know Republicans and Democrats won't do it."
The Libertarian Party platform calls for major reductions in the size and scope of government.
-----
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, March 11, 2011
LP Chair: The problem in Wisconsin is not unions but government
While Republicans and Democrats battle in Wisconsin over a bill to reduce the collective bargaining power of state employee unions as a means of balancing their budget, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle points out that the problem lies with government control of activities it has no business running.
Hinkle comments, "Libertarians are neither pro-union nor anti-union. We believe that the right of association and freedom of contract allows any group of people to choose to bargain collectively rather than individually. Naturally, we oppose violence and threats of such, but unions per se can play a major role in a free society. The problem is that the battle between the Wisconsin state government and state employees isn't even remotely a free market.
"Government monopolizes many services that could and should be provided in the voluntary sector by profit-making and/or non-profit organizations. This also gives them a 'monopsony' as virtually the only potential employer for workers in these fields. Once someone has trained to be a teacher or prison guard, they are essentially at the mercy of government for their employment in that field. Blaming them for wanting collective bargaining representation would be comparable to siding with the Polish government against the union Solidarity headed by Lech Walesa that freed Poland in 1989 from Soviet rule. The problem is with the employer: the government."
Hinkle considers the education budget to be the best example of a solution only Libertarians have offered:
"Far and away the largest part of the budget of the State of Wisconsin, once aid to local governments is allocated to underlying expenditures, is in the category of education. This is true of virtually all state and local governments, so it is the best example of how freedom can provide a solution. Unfortunately, government expenditures for education are driven by political considerations rather than the needs of the students. The result is outrageous costs that are not primarily for the most important ingredient in education: the teacher.
"The U.S. Department of Education calculates that the per pupil cost of K-12 education is nearly $11,000 in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. The Cato Institute, however, in a paper entitled, 'They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools,' discovered that actual spending in the districts they examined was 44 percent higher than official reports due to the failure to include various categories (such as spending financed by bond issuances). We can reasonably estimate that true spending is more than $15,000 per pupil. With class sizes, on average, exceeding 20, the total spending per classroom is probably well in excess of $300,000. Obviously, most of that money isn't going to the teacher in the classroom. In private schools that don't depend on taxpayers, it does: teacher pay and benefits averages nearly 80% of the total budget of the average private school. Not surprisingly, while private schools are often described as havens for the rich, public school spending per pupil is nearly DOUBLE the average private school tuition, mainly because it is a haven for administrators and other recipients of `education' money who never step foot into a classroom.
"The answer to Wisconsin's budget crisis, and that of governments throughout the country, is to return education to the voluntary sector. Compulsory education dominated by tax-supported schools was not established until the mid-1850s, yet literacy rates prior to that time were higher than they are today. Parents have ALWAYS valued the education of their children, and the religious and secular private schools of that time knew they'd only be paid by parents if they taught their children. Free or reduced costs for poor parents was always part of the tradition, and would be again in a country freed of massive taxation and spending.
"Returning education to the voluntary sector and eliminating compulsory funding and attendance laws, not to mention centralized bureaucratic nightmares such as the bi-partisan No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 championed by Republican President George W. Bush and the late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, will free teachers to be responsive to the needs of their students instead of the desires of politicians. As for how to do it quickly, a case can be made for selling all the local schools and putting the proceeds into the underfunded pension and benefits funds, then leaving the reorganization of education in the hands of the buyers. But, the workers at these schools are the ones with the strongest interest in ownership. We could just give each school to its local employees and let them decide whether to run it or sell it. Either way, the teachers, the students, the parents, and the taxpayers are all big winners.
"Education is the largest item in the Wisconsin budget, but the same principle applies to other expenditures. The legitimate debate in Wisconsin and elsewhere is not about whether the politicians or the government employee unions should win. It is why we should be stuck with only one employer sucking the money from taxpayers and then complaining when their power to decide how it is spent is not unlimited."
The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:
2.7 Labor Markets
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
-----
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
Hinkle comments, "Libertarians are neither pro-union nor anti-union. We believe that the right of association and freedom of contract allows any group of people to choose to bargain collectively rather than individually. Naturally, we oppose violence and threats of such, but unions per se can play a major role in a free society. The problem is that the battle between the Wisconsin state government and state employees isn't even remotely a free market.
"Government monopolizes many services that could and should be provided in the voluntary sector by profit-making and/or non-profit organizations. This also gives them a 'monopsony' as virtually the only potential employer for workers in these fields. Once someone has trained to be a teacher or prison guard, they are essentially at the mercy of government for their employment in that field. Blaming them for wanting collective bargaining representation would be comparable to siding with the Polish government against the union Solidarity headed by Lech Walesa that freed Poland in 1989 from Soviet rule. The problem is with the employer: the government."
Hinkle considers the education budget to be the best example of a solution only Libertarians have offered:
"Far and away the largest part of the budget of the State of Wisconsin, once aid to local governments is allocated to underlying expenditures, is in the category of education. This is true of virtually all state and local governments, so it is the best example of how freedom can provide a solution. Unfortunately, government expenditures for education are driven by political considerations rather than the needs of the students. The result is outrageous costs that are not primarily for the most important ingredient in education: the teacher.
"The U.S. Department of Education calculates that the per pupil cost of K-12 education is nearly $11,000 in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. The Cato Institute, however, in a paper entitled, 'They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools,' discovered that actual spending in the districts they examined was 44 percent higher than official reports due to the failure to include various categories (such as spending financed by bond issuances). We can reasonably estimate that true spending is more than $15,000 per pupil. With class sizes, on average, exceeding 20, the total spending per classroom is probably well in excess of $300,000. Obviously, most of that money isn't going to the teacher in the classroom. In private schools that don't depend on taxpayers, it does: teacher pay and benefits averages nearly 80% of the total budget of the average private school. Not surprisingly, while private schools are often described as havens for the rich, public school spending per pupil is nearly DOUBLE the average private school tuition, mainly because it is a haven for administrators and other recipients of `education' money who never step foot into a classroom.
"The answer to Wisconsin's budget crisis, and that of governments throughout the country, is to return education to the voluntary sector. Compulsory education dominated by tax-supported schools was not established until the mid-1850s, yet literacy rates prior to that time were higher than they are today. Parents have ALWAYS valued the education of their children, and the religious and secular private schools of that time knew they'd only be paid by parents if they taught their children. Free or reduced costs for poor parents was always part of the tradition, and would be again in a country freed of massive taxation and spending.
"Returning education to the voluntary sector and eliminating compulsory funding and attendance laws, not to mention centralized bureaucratic nightmares such as the bi-partisan No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 championed by Republican President George W. Bush and the late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, will free teachers to be responsive to the needs of their students instead of the desires of politicians. As for how to do it quickly, a case can be made for selling all the local schools and putting the proceeds into the underfunded pension and benefits funds, then leaving the reorganization of education in the hands of the buyers. But, the workers at these schools are the ones with the strongest interest in ownership. We could just give each school to its local employees and let them decide whether to run it or sell it. Either way, the teachers, the students, the parents, and the taxpayers are all big winners.
"Education is the largest item in the Wisconsin budget, but the same principle applies to other expenditures. The legitimate debate in Wisconsin and elsewhere is not about whether the politicians or the government employee unions should win. It is why we should be stuck with only one employer sucking the money from taxpayers and then complaining when their power to decide how it is spent is not unlimited."
The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:
2.7 Labor Markets
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
-----
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
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Libertarian response to State of the Union and Republicans
This evening (January 25), Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict spoke in response to the addresses from President Barack Obama and Congressman Paul Ryan.
A transcript of Mr. Benedict's speech follows:
Good evening and thank you for your interest in the State of our Union.
My name is Wes Benedict. I'm the executive director of the Libertarian National Committee here in Washington, DC. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.
Tonight we heard from President Barack Obama and a response from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.
President Obama says he wants a freeze in non-security, discretionary spending. In the unlikely event that happens, it won't really matter, because to make a real dent in the deficit, it's necessary to cut spending on the military and entitlements. The president promised big government in the past, and he delivered. I expect more of the same.
However, Obama has truly been a hypocrite on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a candidate, he promised to end them. Tonight we heard more hollow promises. The fact is, as president, he has kept those wars going, and has greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is higher now than it was during any year of the George W. Bush administration.
Unlike President Obama, Libertarians would bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the military budget.
On the Republican side, I found Congressman Paul Ryan's hypocrisy appalling. He claims to want big cuts in government spending. But he didn't seem to be too worried about cutting spending when Republicans were in charge. He supported the huge Medicare expansion in 2003, and the expensive No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. He supports the expensive War on Drugs. In 2008, he put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk by voting for the massive TARP bailout, and he even voted to spend billions on the GM and Chrysler bailout.
Just one month ago, Congressman Ryan voted for the tax compromise that included a big increase in unemployment spending, and even extensions of government spending on ethanol.
Republicans don't want to cut spending -- they want to talk about cutting spending.
Congressman Paul Ryan is a perfect example of why Republicans are bad for America.
Republicans' plans for Social Security and Medicare are little more than a distraction. It's time for someone to have the guts to tell seniors the truth: You were promised way too much, and now we've got to make major cuts. I'm asking retirees to think about the enormous debts piling up on your children and grandchildren.
Libertarians would stop spending billions on bailouts, the War on Drugs, federal education programs, and we would end mandatory Social Security and Medicare.
Today, America is a country that attracts hardworking immigrants from Mexico and around the world, leaving countries that are less free and prosperous. Libertarians welcome these immigrants warmly. But I often wonder if -- in 20 years -- America will still be a great place to live, or if it will be another declining civilization fraught with poverty and abuse that your children want to leave.
The future of America may depend on the Libertarian Party steering us towards liberty and away from tyranny.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party, and one of the most successful alternative parties in American history.
We are recruiting bold, principled men and women dedicated to freedom to fill leadership positions and to run for office as Libertarians.
You don't have to agree with every single Libertarian position to join the Libertarian Party. You can still make a difference and help us move our country towards freedom.
The Libertarian Party has more information at our website, LP.org. Please visit LP.org and join the Libertarian Party today.
Thank you and good night.
-----
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
A transcript of Mr. Benedict's speech follows:
Good evening and thank you for your interest in the State of our Union.
My name is Wes Benedict. I'm the executive director of the Libertarian National Committee here in Washington, DC. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.
Tonight we heard from President Barack Obama and a response from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.
President Obama says he wants a freeze in non-security, discretionary spending. In the unlikely event that happens, it won't really matter, because to make a real dent in the deficit, it's necessary to cut spending on the military and entitlements. The president promised big government in the past, and he delivered. I expect more of the same.
However, Obama has truly been a hypocrite on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a candidate, he promised to end them. Tonight we heard more hollow promises. The fact is, as president, he has kept those wars going, and has greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is higher now than it was during any year of the George W. Bush administration.
Unlike President Obama, Libertarians would bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the military budget.
On the Republican side, I found Congressman Paul Ryan's hypocrisy appalling. He claims to want big cuts in government spending. But he didn't seem to be too worried about cutting spending when Republicans were in charge. He supported the huge Medicare expansion in 2003, and the expensive No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. He supports the expensive War on Drugs. In 2008, he put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk by voting for the massive TARP bailout, and he even voted to spend billions on the GM and Chrysler bailout.
Just one month ago, Congressman Ryan voted for the tax compromise that included a big increase in unemployment spending, and even extensions of government spending on ethanol.
Republicans don't want to cut spending -- they want to talk about cutting spending.
Congressman Paul Ryan is a perfect example of why Republicans are bad for America.
Republicans' plans for Social Security and Medicare are little more than a distraction. It's time for someone to have the guts to tell seniors the truth: You were promised way too much, and now we've got to make major cuts. I'm asking retirees to think about the enormous debts piling up on your children and grandchildren.
Libertarians would stop spending billions on bailouts, the War on Drugs, federal education programs, and we would end mandatory Social Security and Medicare.
Today, America is a country that attracts hardworking immigrants from Mexico and around the world, leaving countries that are less free and prosperous. Libertarians welcome these immigrants warmly. But I often wonder if -- in 20 years -- America will still be a great place to live, or if it will be another declining civilization fraught with poverty and abuse that your children want to leave.
The future of America may depend on the Libertarian Party steering us towards liberty and away from tyranny.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party, and one of the most successful alternative parties in American history.
We are recruiting bold, principled men and women dedicated to freedom to fill leadership positions and to run for office as Libertarians.
You don't have to agree with every single Libertarian position to join the Libertarian Party. You can still make a difference and help us move our country towards freedom.
The Libertarian Party has more information at our website, LP.org. Please visit LP.org and join the Libertarian Party today.
Thank you and good night.
-----
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, July 29, 2010
Rep. Chris Smith's New Bill is Necessary to Restore Abortion Funding Neutrality
/PRNewswire/ -- D.C. Family Research Council Action today praised U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) for introducing bipartisan legislation to codify federal abortion funding restrictions that have been greatly undermined this year. With passage of a health care law that will fund and subsidize abortion, and with efforts by pro-abortion senators to open up military bases to abortion, Rep. Smith is introducing legislation to enact a government-wide abortion funding ban.
Family Research Council Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky praised the bill with the following comments:
"In the last year, we have seen President Obama and pro-abortion congressional leaders make repeated attempts to eviscerate the long-agreed line on federal funding of abortion. They began by enacting the abortion funding health care law and are now advancing an abortion agenda that includes turning our military hospitals into abortion facilities.
"The American people have responded swiftly and emphatically that their hard earned dollars should not be used to pay for other peoples abortions. We applaud Congressman Smith and numerous Members on both sides of the aisle for responding to the concerns of the American people by introducing a measure that applies an abortion funding ban across the federal government.
"The American people, regardless of their views of abortion's legality, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. The Smith bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the traditional ban on government funding of elective abortion.
"Despite recent claims by the Department of Health and Human Services that it will not fund abortion, even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service agreed yesterday that there is no statutory prohibition on funding abortion in the high risk pools. Both pro-life and pro-abortion groups agree that the courts are likely to require federal abortion funding unless the law says differently which is why passage of Congressman Smith's abortion funding neutrality bill is so essential.
"We applaud all the Democrats and Republicans cosponsoring the Smith abortion funding ban, and urge all Americans to support this commonsense effort to restore government funding neutrality on abortion," concluded McClusky.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Family Research Council Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky praised the bill with the following comments:
"In the last year, we have seen President Obama and pro-abortion congressional leaders make repeated attempts to eviscerate the long-agreed line on federal funding of abortion. They began by enacting the abortion funding health care law and are now advancing an abortion agenda that includes turning our military hospitals into abortion facilities.
"The American people have responded swiftly and emphatically that their hard earned dollars should not be used to pay for other peoples abortions. We applaud Congressman Smith and numerous Members on both sides of the aisle for responding to the concerns of the American people by introducing a measure that applies an abortion funding ban across the federal government.
"The American people, regardless of their views of abortion's legality, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. The Smith bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the traditional ban on government funding of elective abortion.
"Despite recent claims by the Department of Health and Human Services that it will not fund abortion, even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service agreed yesterday that there is no statutory prohibition on funding abortion in the high risk pools. Both pro-life and pro-abortion groups agree that the courts are likely to require federal abortion funding unless the law says differently which is why passage of Congressman Smith's abortion funding neutrality bill is so essential.
"We applaud all the Democrats and Republicans cosponsoring the Smith abortion funding ban, and urge all Americans to support this commonsense effort to restore government funding neutrality on abortion," concluded McClusky.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, May 21, 2010
Rand Paul Sets the Record Straight
(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kentucky Republican nominee for United States Senate Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:
“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.
“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.
“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.
“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.
“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.
“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.
“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Libertarians question Republican participation in Tea Parties
Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement today:
"Many Libertarians around America are planning to go to Tea Party rallies tomorrow. I also expect lots of Republican activists and politicians to be there. But frankly, I don't think those Republicans belong there. The people participating in these rallies are saying 'There's too much government spending,' but Republicans, decade after decade, have supported massive increases in government spending. During the George W. Bush administration, Republicans in Congress supported spending trillions of dollars on foreign wars, a massive Medicare expansion, and banker bailouts. Republicans doubled the budget and doubled the federal debt. Why can't the Republican Party just admit that it loves big government?
"If I thought there would be many Democrats at these rallies, I'd criticize them too. However, I think it's safe to say that they'll be few and far between.
"Many Libertarians are enthusiastic about the Tea Parties, but many are not. Many Libertarians are concerned that participating causes us to get lumped in with conservatives and Republicans. In our online poll at LP.org, 28% so far say that 'The Tea Parties have become too Republican-flavored.'
"Libertarians are often frustrated when the press characterizes us as 'right-wing' or 'conservative.' Although we certainly support reducing government spending, which most conservatives also claim to support, we differ from right-wingers on many issues: for example, we oppose foreign interventionism, support immigrant-friendly policies, oppose overreaction to terrorism, and oppose the War on Drugs.
"Libertarians are neither left-wing nor right-wing. We're in a different place on the political map, as illustrated by the popular World's Smallest Political Quiz.
"Some of the people in the tax day Tea Party crowds will be right-wingers, and some will be Libertarians. For those Tea Partiers who support Libertarian principles of very limited government spending, government tolerance on social issues, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, the Libertarian Party is ready to welcome them with open arms."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"Many Libertarians around America are planning to go to Tea Party rallies tomorrow. I also expect lots of Republican activists and politicians to be there. But frankly, I don't think those Republicans belong there. The people participating in these rallies are saying 'There's too much government spending,' but Republicans, decade after decade, have supported massive increases in government spending. During the George W. Bush administration, Republicans in Congress supported spending trillions of dollars on foreign wars, a massive Medicare expansion, and banker bailouts. Republicans doubled the budget and doubled the federal debt. Why can't the Republican Party just admit that it loves big government?
"If I thought there would be many Democrats at these rallies, I'd criticize them too. However, I think it's safe to say that they'll be few and far between.
"Many Libertarians are enthusiastic about the Tea Parties, but many are not. Many Libertarians are concerned that participating causes us to get lumped in with conservatives and Republicans. In our online poll at LP.org, 28% so far say that 'The Tea Parties have become too Republican-flavored.'
"Libertarians are often frustrated when the press characterizes us as 'right-wing' or 'conservative.' Although we certainly support reducing government spending, which most conservatives also claim to support, we differ from right-wingers on many issues: for example, we oppose foreign interventionism, support immigrant-friendly policies, oppose overreaction to terrorism, and oppose the War on Drugs.
"Libertarians are neither left-wing nor right-wing. We're in a different place on the political map, as illustrated by the popular World's Smallest Political Quiz.
"Some of the people in the tax day Tea Party crowds will be right-wingers, and some will be Libertarians. For those Tea Partiers who support Libertarian principles of very limited government spending, government tolerance on social issues, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, the Libertarian Party is ready to welcome them with open arms."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Libertarians criticize CPAC conservatives
As the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) holds its annual conference, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict offered the following statement:
I'm sure we'll hear an awful lot about "limited government" from the mouths of CPAC politicians over the next few days. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said "limited government" and didn't mean it, I'd be a very rich man.
Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don't want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases "limited government" and "small government" like a hypnotic chant.
It's interesting that conservatives only notice "big government" when it's something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants a 700-billion-dollar bank bailout, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants to "protect" the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn't count.
It's truly amazing how many things "don't count."
Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can't ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.
Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.
Conservatives like George W. Bush -- well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.
Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.
Some people claim that these big-government supporters aren't "true conservatives." Well, if a person opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes the War on Drugs, opposes border fences, and opposes mandatory Social Security and Medicare, it's hard to believe that anyone would describe that person as a conservative at all. Most people would say that person is a libertarian (or maybe even a liberal).
Obviously, most liberals don't want limited government either. It's just that their support for big government leans toward massive handout and redistribution programs.
The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.
An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt's average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan's average was 22.3 percent of GDP. (Source: White House OMB data)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
I'm sure we'll hear an awful lot about "limited government" from the mouths of CPAC politicians over the next few days. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said "limited government" and didn't mean it, I'd be a very rich man.
Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don't want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases "limited government" and "small government" like a hypnotic chant.
It's interesting that conservatives only notice "big government" when it's something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants a 700-billion-dollar bank bailout, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants to "protect" the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn't count.
* If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn't count.
It's truly amazing how many things "don't count."
Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can't ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.
Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.
Conservatives like George W. Bush -- well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.
Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.
Some people claim that these big-government supporters aren't "true conservatives." Well, if a person opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes the War on Drugs, opposes border fences, and opposes mandatory Social Security and Medicare, it's hard to believe that anyone would describe that person as a conservative at all. Most people would say that person is a libertarian (or maybe even a liberal).
Obviously, most liberals don't want limited government either. It's just that their support for big government leans toward massive handout and redistribution programs.
The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.
An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt's average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan's average was 22.3 percent of GDP. (Source: White House OMB data)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, January 22, 2010
Judicial Watch Sponsors National Tea Party Convention
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the non-partisan public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it will serve as a major sponsor for the upcoming National Tea Party Convention to be held February 4-6, 2010, at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton will also address the convention on how to uncover and combat government corruption. Former Alaska
Governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to provide the keynote address.
The purpose of the convention is to bring "Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation for the purpose of networking and supporting the movement's multiple organizations' principal goals."
The convention will feature speakers, workshops, information centers, and will provide organizational tools for those who support the Tea Party movement.
"We're proud to stand with other Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and the need to limit the size and scope of the federal government," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Most Americans, especially the Tea Party movement, understand that big government leads to big corruption. So as the Obama administration inflates the size of government to unprecedented and dangerous levels -- Americans' concern about corruption is rightly increasing. As a group that has taken on both Republican and Democratic corruption,
Judicial Watch is honored to support the independent Tea Party movement."
According to a recent Judicial Watch poll conducted December 11-19, 2009, in partnership with Survey USA, a majority of likely voters believe that government is too big (64%) and that bigger government leads to more corruption (62%). Overall, 65% believe political corruption in the federal government is a "very serious" problem. Sure enough, most Americans(62%) believe increasing government's role in healthcare will lead to more corruption in the healthcare system.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to provide the keynote address.
The purpose of the convention is to bring "Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation for the purpose of networking and supporting the movement's multiple organizations' principal goals."
The convention will feature speakers, workshops, information centers, and will provide organizational tools for those who support the Tea Party movement.
"We're proud to stand with other Americans who respect the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and the need to limit the size and scope of the federal government," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Most Americans, especially the Tea Party movement, understand that big government leads to big corruption. So as the Obama administration inflates the size of government to unprecedented and dangerous levels -- Americans' concern about corruption is rightly increasing. As a group that has taken on both Republican and Democratic corruption,
Judicial Watch is honored to support the independent Tea Party movement."
According to a recent Judicial Watch poll conducted December 11-19, 2009, in partnership with Survey USA, a majority of likely voters believe that government is too big (64%) and that bigger government leads to more corruption (62%). Overall, 65% believe political corruption in the federal government is a "very serious" problem. Sure enough, most Americans(62%) believe increasing government's role in healthcare will lead to more corruption in the healthcare system.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Congress Passes Commercial Space Launch Indemnification Extension
/PRNewswire/ -- Congress has taken a major step for the U.S. commercial space launch industry by extending government indemnification of launches for another three years.
"Elimination of government indemnification would have driven launch business overseas," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey. "In 2008, only six of the 28 worldwide commercial launches were conducted by U.S. companies, and America can't afford to lose more of that business."
The indemnification regime, set to expire on December 31, helps protect U.S. commercial launch services providers against catastrophic third-party liability claims resulting from FAA-licensed launch activities. Payment of claims is not automatic and no funds are committed to this regime. Congressional approval is required for any payment.
"As space launch capabilities have been developed by other nations our share of commercial launches has decreased significantly," Blakey said. "Further loss of our commercial launch share could impact civil and national security payloads because the same U.S. companies also launch under government contracts."
While today's passage marks a very important step, AIA looks forward to working with Congress to make the indemnification regime permanent. Since launch manifests can extend out for several years, the regime maintains continuity in the business environment and strengthens U.S. international competitiveness.
"The indemnification regime provides a level playing field in a very competitive global space launch market, since every other space faring nation provides some form of government indemnification to commercial launchers," said Blakey.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Elimination of government indemnification would have driven launch business overseas," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey. "In 2008, only six of the 28 worldwide commercial launches were conducted by U.S. companies, and America can't afford to lose more of that business."
The indemnification regime, set to expire on December 31, helps protect U.S. commercial launch services providers against catastrophic third-party liability claims resulting from FAA-licensed launch activities. Payment of claims is not automatic and no funds are committed to this regime. Congressional approval is required for any payment.
"As space launch capabilities have been developed by other nations our share of commercial launches has decreased significantly," Blakey said. "Further loss of our commercial launch share could impact civil and national security payloads because the same U.S. companies also launch under government contracts."
While today's passage marks a very important step, AIA looks forward to working with Congress to make the indemnification regime permanent. Since launch manifests can extend out for several years, the regime maintains continuity in the business environment and strengthens U.S. international competitiveness.
"The indemnification regime provides a level playing field in a very competitive global space launch market, since every other space faring nation provides some form of government indemnification to commercial launchers," said Blakey.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
U.S. Mayors Praise President Obama for Supporting Fiscal Relief for Local Governments and States, Targeted Infrastructure Investment, Small Business
U.S. Mayors Praise President Obama for Supporting Fiscal Relief for Local Governments and States, Targeted Infrastructure Investment, Small Business Capital
/PRNewswire/ -- The following statement from Tom Cochran, USCM CEO and Executive Director, was released today:
"The President and his advisors have been meeting with U.S. mayors. The President understands the jobs and fiscal crisis happening in America's cities, and he is calling for action," Conference of Mayors CEO and Executive Director Tom Cochran said today following President Obama's jobs address.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors has developed A Call to Action which highlights the ongoing jobs crisis in America's cities -- predicted to last for years -- and the need for more targeted investments in cities and local infrastructure to create jobs.
One of the key action items called for by mayors is "Targeted Fiscal Relief for High Unemployment Cities and Metro Areas." Cities all across the country have faced significant layoffs and budgetary cutbacks this summer, with dire local revenue projections in the coming years. ARRA provided significant fiscal assistance to states, but none to local governments. The recession is now having drastic effects at the local level. Therefore, mayors are calling on the Administration and Congress to develop a fiscal assistance program targeted to cities with high rates of unemployment and budget shortfalls. This is needed to prevent even deeper layoffs in critical areas such as public safety and public works, and help cities promote private sector job creation through local infrastructure projects.
In his address today, the President said, Congress should extend "relief to states and localities to prevent layoffs." And during the recent White House Jobs Summit on December 3 -- attended by five mayors -- the President said, "As tough as this financial crisis or recession has been on the federal budget, it has in some cases been worse on state and local government budgets... Usually, state and local government revenues lag the recovery as a whole. They may need some more help from the federal government... If you see a complete collapse in state and local government spending on basic needs, that could create a very bad business climate for all of you."
The President also called for more targeted infrastructure investment in programs such as TIGER grants and public transit, as well as support for small business lending -- all strongly supported by mayors.
The Conference of Mayors is working closely with both the Administration and Congress to ensure that in this jobs bill, more resources and infrastructure projects go directly to cities and local areas -- ensuring they are not stalled in state bureaucracies - so that more jobs can be created now.
"Mayors can be the catalyst for creating public and private sector jobs quickly, which is exactly what this economy needs now," Cochran added.
A copy of the USCM report A Call to Action is available at usmayors.org.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,139 such cities in the country today, each represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the Mayor.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire/ -- The following statement from Tom Cochran, USCM CEO and Executive Director, was released today:
"The President and his advisors have been meeting with U.S. mayors. The President understands the jobs and fiscal crisis happening in America's cities, and he is calling for action," Conference of Mayors CEO and Executive Director Tom Cochran said today following President Obama's jobs address.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors has developed A Call to Action which highlights the ongoing jobs crisis in America's cities -- predicted to last for years -- and the need for more targeted investments in cities and local infrastructure to create jobs.
One of the key action items called for by mayors is "Targeted Fiscal Relief for High Unemployment Cities and Metro Areas." Cities all across the country have faced significant layoffs and budgetary cutbacks this summer, with dire local revenue projections in the coming years. ARRA provided significant fiscal assistance to states, but none to local governments. The recession is now having drastic effects at the local level. Therefore, mayors are calling on the Administration and Congress to develop a fiscal assistance program targeted to cities with high rates of unemployment and budget shortfalls. This is needed to prevent even deeper layoffs in critical areas such as public safety and public works, and help cities promote private sector job creation through local infrastructure projects.
In his address today, the President said, Congress should extend "relief to states and localities to prevent layoffs." And during the recent White House Jobs Summit on December 3 -- attended by five mayors -- the President said, "As tough as this financial crisis or recession has been on the federal budget, it has in some cases been worse on state and local government budgets... Usually, state and local government revenues lag the recovery as a whole. They may need some more help from the federal government... If you see a complete collapse in state and local government spending on basic needs, that could create a very bad business climate for all of you."
The President also called for more targeted infrastructure investment in programs such as TIGER grants and public transit, as well as support for small business lending -- all strongly supported by mayors.
The Conference of Mayors is working closely with both the Administration and Congress to ensure that in this jobs bill, more resources and infrastructure projects go directly to cities and local areas -- ensuring they are not stalled in state bureaucracies - so that more jobs can be created now.
"Mayors can be the catalyst for creating public and private sector jobs quickly, which is exactly what this economy needs now," Cochran added.
A copy of the USCM report A Call to Action is available at usmayors.org.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,139 such cities in the country today, each represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the Mayor.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Attorney General Holder, Secretary Salazar Announce Settlement of Cobell Lawsuit on Indian Trust Management
/PRNewswire/ -- Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced a settlement of the long-running and highly contentious Cobell class-action lawsuit regarding the U.S. government's trust management and accounting of over three hundred thousand individual American Indian trust accounts. Also speaking at the press conference today were Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli and Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes.
"Over the past thirteen years, the parties have tried to settle this case many, many times, each time unsuccessfully," said Attorney General Holder. "But today we turn the page. This settlement is fair to the plaintiffs, responsible for the United States, and provides a path forward for the future."
"This is an historic, positive development for Indian country and a major step on the road to reconciliation following years of acrimonious litigation between trust beneficiaries and the United States," Secretary Salazar said. "Resolving this issue has been a top priority of President Obama, and this administration has worked in good faith to reach a settlement that is both honorable and responsible. This historic step will allow Interior to move forward and address the educational, law enforcement, and economic development challenges we face in Indian Country."
Under the negotiated agreement, litigation will end regarding the Department of the Interior's performance of an historical accounting for trust accounts maintained by the United States on behalf of more than 300,000 individual Indians. A fund totaling $1.4 billion will be distributed to class members to compensate them for their historical accounting claims, and to resolve potential claims that prior U.S. officials mismanaged the administration of trust assets.
In addition, in order to address the continued proliferation of thousands of new trust accounts caused by the "fractionation" of land interests through succeeding generations, the settlement establishes a $2 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land interests. The land consolidation program will provide individual Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for divided land interests and free up the land for the benefit of tribal communities.
By reducing the number of individual trust accounts that the U.S. must maintain, the program will greatly reduce on-going administrative expenses and future accounting-related disputes. In order to provide owners with an additional incentive to sell their fractionated interests, the settlement authorizes the Interior Department to set aside up to 5 percent of the value of the interests into a college and vocational school scholarship fund for American Indian students.
The settlement has been negotiated with the involvement of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It will not become final until it is formally endorsed by the court. Also, Congress must enact legislation to authorize implementation of the settlement. Because it is a settlement of a litigation matter, the Judgment Fund maintained by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Treasury will fund the settlement.
"While we have made significant progress in improving and strengthening the management of Indian trust assets, our work is not over," said Salazar, who also announced he is establishing a national commission to evaluate ongoing trust reform efforts and make recommendations for the future management of individual trust account assets in light of a congressional sunset provision for the Office of Special Trustee, which was established by Congress in 1994 to reform financial management of the trust system.
The class action case, which involves several hundred thousand plaintiffs, was filed by Elouise Cobell in 1996 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has included hundreds of motions, dozens of rulings and appeals, and several trials over the past 13 years. The settlement funds will be administered by the trust department of a bank approved by the district court and distributed to individual Indians by a claims administrator in accordance with court orders and the settlement agreement.
Interior currently manages about 56 million acres of Indian trust land, administering more than 100,000 leases and about $3.5 billion in trust funds. For fiscal year 2009, funds from leases, use permits, land sales and income from financial assets, totaling about $298 million were collected for more than 384,000 open Individual Indian Money accounts and $566 million was collected for about 2,700 tribal accounts for more than 250 tribes. Since 1996, the U.S. Government has collected over $10.4 billion from individual and tribal trust assets and disbursed more than $9.5 billion to individual account holders and tribal governments.
The land consolidation fund addresses a legacy of the General Allotment Act of 1887 (the "Dawes Act"), which divided tribal lands into parcels between 40 and 160 acres in size, allotted them to individual Indians and sold off all remaining unallotted Indian lands. As the original holders died, their intestate heirs received an equal, undivided interest in the lands as tenants in common. In successive generations, smaller undivided interests descended to the next generation.
Today, it is common to have hundreds -- even thousands -- of Indian owners for one parcel of land. Such highly fractionated ownership makes it extremely difficult to use the land productively or to provide beneficial use for any individual. Absent serious corrective action, an estimated 4 million acres of land will continue to be held in such small ownership interests that very few individual owners will ever derive any meaningful financial benefit from that ownership.
Additional Information is available at the following sites: www.cobellsettlement.com. The Department of the Interior website: www.doi.gov. The Office of the Special Trustee website: www.ost.doi.gov.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Over the past thirteen years, the parties have tried to settle this case many, many times, each time unsuccessfully," said Attorney General Holder. "But today we turn the page. This settlement is fair to the plaintiffs, responsible for the United States, and provides a path forward for the future."
"This is an historic, positive development for Indian country and a major step on the road to reconciliation following years of acrimonious litigation between trust beneficiaries and the United States," Secretary Salazar said. "Resolving this issue has been a top priority of President Obama, and this administration has worked in good faith to reach a settlement that is both honorable and responsible. This historic step will allow Interior to move forward and address the educational, law enforcement, and economic development challenges we face in Indian Country."
Under the negotiated agreement, litigation will end regarding the Department of the Interior's performance of an historical accounting for trust accounts maintained by the United States on behalf of more than 300,000 individual Indians. A fund totaling $1.4 billion will be distributed to class members to compensate them for their historical accounting claims, and to resolve potential claims that prior U.S. officials mismanaged the administration of trust assets.
In addition, in order to address the continued proliferation of thousands of new trust accounts caused by the "fractionation" of land interests through succeeding generations, the settlement establishes a $2 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land interests. The land consolidation program will provide individual Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for divided land interests and free up the land for the benefit of tribal communities.
By reducing the number of individual trust accounts that the U.S. must maintain, the program will greatly reduce on-going administrative expenses and future accounting-related disputes. In order to provide owners with an additional incentive to sell their fractionated interests, the settlement authorizes the Interior Department to set aside up to 5 percent of the value of the interests into a college and vocational school scholarship fund for American Indian students.
The settlement has been negotiated with the involvement of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It will not become final until it is formally endorsed by the court. Also, Congress must enact legislation to authorize implementation of the settlement. Because it is a settlement of a litigation matter, the Judgment Fund maintained by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Treasury will fund the settlement.
"While we have made significant progress in improving and strengthening the management of Indian trust assets, our work is not over," said Salazar, who also announced he is establishing a national commission to evaluate ongoing trust reform efforts and make recommendations for the future management of individual trust account assets in light of a congressional sunset provision for the Office of Special Trustee, which was established by Congress in 1994 to reform financial management of the trust system.
The class action case, which involves several hundred thousand plaintiffs, was filed by Elouise Cobell in 1996 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has included hundreds of motions, dozens of rulings and appeals, and several trials over the past 13 years. The settlement funds will be administered by the trust department of a bank approved by the district court and distributed to individual Indians by a claims administrator in accordance with court orders and the settlement agreement.
Interior currently manages about 56 million acres of Indian trust land, administering more than 100,000 leases and about $3.5 billion in trust funds. For fiscal year 2009, funds from leases, use permits, land sales and income from financial assets, totaling about $298 million were collected for more than 384,000 open Individual Indian Money accounts and $566 million was collected for about 2,700 tribal accounts for more than 250 tribes. Since 1996, the U.S. Government has collected over $10.4 billion from individual and tribal trust assets and disbursed more than $9.5 billion to individual account holders and tribal governments.
The land consolidation fund addresses a legacy of the General Allotment Act of 1887 (the "Dawes Act"), which divided tribal lands into parcels between 40 and 160 acres in size, allotted them to individual Indians and sold off all remaining unallotted Indian lands. As the original holders died, their intestate heirs received an equal, undivided interest in the lands as tenants in common. In successive generations, smaller undivided interests descended to the next generation.
Today, it is common to have hundreds -- even thousands -- of Indian owners for one parcel of land. Such highly fractionated ownership makes it extremely difficult to use the land productively or to provide beneficial use for any individual. Absent serious corrective action, an estimated 4 million acres of land will continue to be held in such small ownership interests that very few individual owners will ever derive any meaningful financial benefit from that ownership.
Additional Information is available at the following sites: www.cobellsettlement.com. The Department of the Interior website: www.doi.gov. The Office of the Special Trustee website: www.ost.doi.gov.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Friday, November 20, 2009
Senate Mandatory Health-Insurance Bill Infringes on Choice and Privacy
/PRNewswire/ -- The Senate's newly released health-reform bill ("Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act") infringes on Americans' health-insurance choices and medical privacy, says Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) -- a patients' rights group in Washington, D.C.
The bill would (among many other provisions):
-- Require nearly every legal resident to buy government-sanctioned
health insurance;
-- Increase Medicare payroll taxes on individuals earning over $200,000
per year and couples earning over $250,000 per year (raising $54
billion in taxes over 10 years);
-- Slap a new tax on "Cadillac" health plans (high-cost plans offered by
employers to their employees) -- raising $149 billion in taxes over 10
years (2010-2019); and
-- Finish laying the building blocks for a computerized "Nationwide
Health Information Network" (NHIN) without patients' consent.
Section 937 of the bill, titled "Dissemination and Building Capacity for Research," includes the following provision:
''(f) BUILDING DATA FOR RESEARCH.--The Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall provide for the coordination of relevant Federal health programs to build data capacity for comparative clinical effectiveness research, including the development and use of clinical registries and health outcomes research data networks, in order to develop and maintain a comprehensive, interoperable data network to collect, link, and analyze data on outcomes and effectiveness from multiple sources, including electronic health records." [Emphasis added.] (See pages 1683-684 of the bill.)
Dissemination of the collected data will be governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule, which actually permits patients' personal health information to be shared among more than 600,000 organizations without patients' consent. "Combining a mandatory national electronic medical-records data network with the so-called HIPAA privacy rule means patients will lose control over the flow of their personal health information," says Robin Kaigh, an attorney and medical-privacy advocate. "The only way to ensure that patients control their personal health data is to make sure patient consent is obtained before data can be shared."
IHF points out that Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, recently stressed in U.S. News & World Report:
"...[T]he doctor-patient relationship was never meant to be other than confidential and privileged and solely for the benefit of the patient. Patients expect it, or they would not be forthcoming. And doctors take the Hippocratic oath, pledging to hold sacred their patients' secrets. This pledge of confidentiality, however, is now challenged by a world where computers rule and health information falls into many hands. One might well ask whether medical privacy is just too outmoded a concept for today's information-hungry world. We had better decide...."
Do you really wish to have your personal health information become part of a Nationwide Health Information Network without your consent?
IHF is encouraging citizens to call their Senators as soon as possible and tell them to "vote no on a motion to proceed" on Senator Reid's mandatory health-insurance bill, because it infringes on patients' choice and privacy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The bill would (among many other provisions):
-- Require nearly every legal resident to buy government-sanctioned
health insurance;
-- Increase Medicare payroll taxes on individuals earning over $200,000
per year and couples earning over $250,000 per year (raising $54
billion in taxes over 10 years);
-- Slap a new tax on "Cadillac" health plans (high-cost plans offered by
employers to their employees) -- raising $149 billion in taxes over 10
years (2010-2019); and
-- Finish laying the building blocks for a computerized "Nationwide
Health Information Network" (NHIN) without patients' consent.
Section 937 of the bill, titled "Dissemination and Building Capacity for Research," includes the following provision:
''(f) BUILDING DATA FOR RESEARCH.--The Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall provide for the coordination of relevant Federal health programs to build data capacity for comparative clinical effectiveness research, including the development and use of clinical registries and health outcomes research data networks, in order to develop and maintain a comprehensive, interoperable data network to collect, link, and analyze data on outcomes and effectiveness from multiple sources, including electronic health records." [Emphasis added.] (See pages 1683-684 of the bill.)
Dissemination of the collected data will be governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule, which actually permits patients' personal health information to be shared among more than 600,000 organizations without patients' consent. "Combining a mandatory national electronic medical-records data network with the so-called HIPAA privacy rule means patients will lose control over the flow of their personal health information," says Robin Kaigh, an attorney and medical-privacy advocate. "The only way to ensure that patients control their personal health data is to make sure patient consent is obtained before data can be shared."
IHF points out that Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health, recently stressed in U.S. News & World Report:
"...[T]he doctor-patient relationship was never meant to be other than confidential and privileged and solely for the benefit of the patient. Patients expect it, or they would not be forthcoming. And doctors take the Hippocratic oath, pledging to hold sacred their patients' secrets. This pledge of confidentiality, however, is now challenged by a world where computers rule and health information falls into many hands. One might well ask whether medical privacy is just too outmoded a concept for today's information-hungry world. We had better decide...."
Do you really wish to have your personal health information become part of a Nationwide Health Information Network without your consent?
IHF is encouraging citizens to call their Senators as soon as possible and tell them to "vote no on a motion to proceed" on Senator Reid's mandatory health-insurance bill, because it infringes on patients' choice and privacy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, November 19, 2009
New Reid Bill Funds Abortion: Excludes Bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment
/PRNewswire/ -- Last night, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Senate Democrats introduced a new Senate version of health care reform that includes government funding for elective abortion. The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" authorizes the Secretary to include elective abortion in the public option and subsidize health plans in the government run exchange that cover elective abortion.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Senator Reid's new health bill does not include the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was designed to prevent federal funding for abortion-on-demand. Instead, he chose to include a version of Rep. Lois Capp's abortion funding language which has already been rejected by the House in favor of the Stupak-Pitts language.
"The Reid bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to fund abortion in the public option, now called the 'community health insurance option.' The bill provides tax credits for private plans that cover abortion-on-demand, mandates plans across the country to cover abortion-on-demand and strips important conscience protections for providers who refuse to perform elective abortion.
"The Stupak-Pitts amendment adopted with 240 votes in the House would prevent federal funding for abortion or subsidies for plans that cover abortion. It also makes clear that individuals or groups are not prevented from providing coverage that includes abortion as long as federal funds are not used.
"Clearly the straightforward language of the Stupak-Pitts amendment is not what Senator Reid and his pro-abortion colleagues want. Rather they want government funding of abortion-on-demand.
"Pro-life senators, including Senators Ben Nelson and Bob Casey, must denounce the Reid abortion funding provisions and make every effort to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the Senate bill in order to prevent the establishment of a government funded abortion program for the first time in over three decades."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Senator Reid's new health bill does not include the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was designed to prevent federal funding for abortion-on-demand. Instead, he chose to include a version of Rep. Lois Capp's abortion funding language which has already been rejected by the House in favor of the Stupak-Pitts language.
"The Reid bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to fund abortion in the public option, now called the 'community health insurance option.' The bill provides tax credits for private plans that cover abortion-on-demand, mandates plans across the country to cover abortion-on-demand and strips important conscience protections for providers who refuse to perform elective abortion.
"The Stupak-Pitts amendment adopted with 240 votes in the House would prevent federal funding for abortion or subsidies for plans that cover abortion. It also makes clear that individuals or groups are not prevented from providing coverage that includes abortion as long as federal funds are not used.
"Clearly the straightforward language of the Stupak-Pitts amendment is not what Senator Reid and his pro-abortion colleagues want. Rather they want government funding of abortion-on-demand.
"Pro-life senators, including Senators Ben Nelson and Bob Casey, must denounce the Reid abortion funding provisions and make every effort to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the Senate bill in order to prevent the establishment of a government funded abortion program for the first time in over three decades."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Friday, October 2, 2009
Members of U.S. Congress Warn Hondurans New Elections Won't Be Recognized Unless Conflict is Resolved
/PRNewswire/ -- The Center for Democracy in the Americas (CDA) praised six senior Members of the U.S. Congress for their open letter to the Honduran Congress reminding Honduran authorities that without political progress in ending the crisis caused by the coup against President Zelaya the U.S. will not recognize the winner of that country's upcoming presidential elections.
"This timely letter speaks in clear and compelling language to the coup government and its supporters in the Honduran Congress," Sarah Stephens, executive director of the CDA said. "Unless the coup is ended, President Zelaya is restored, and violations of democracy and human rights are halted, no presidential election conducted in that environment will be recognized as free or fair or legitimate by the United States government and its senior leaders.
The letter signed by Representatives James McGovern, Bill Delahunt, Sam Farr, Gregory Meeks, Janice Schakowsky, and Xavier Becerra was sent to Honduras as four Republican Members of the Congress visited interim President Micheletti and communicated their support for the coup.
"Honduras's interim government should pay attention not to rump groups seeking publicity, but to senior Members of the Congress who stand with the Obama administration on behalf of democracy, diplomacy, and dialogue. We believe Honduras should act quickly and decisively to end this crisis and avoid entering a new presidency with this odious cloud hanging over its government."
The Center for Democracy in the Americas (CDA) is devoted to changing U.S. policy toward the countries of the Americas by basing our relations on mutual respect, recognizing positive models of governance in the region, and fostering dialogue particularly with those governments and movements with which U.S. policy is at odds.
Ms. Stephens testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs about the coup in Honduras on July 10, 2009.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"This timely letter speaks in clear and compelling language to the coup government and its supporters in the Honduran Congress," Sarah Stephens, executive director of the CDA said. "Unless the coup is ended, President Zelaya is restored, and violations of democracy and human rights are halted, no presidential election conducted in that environment will be recognized as free or fair or legitimate by the United States government and its senior leaders.
The letter signed by Representatives James McGovern, Bill Delahunt, Sam Farr, Gregory Meeks, Janice Schakowsky, and Xavier Becerra was sent to Honduras as four Republican Members of the Congress visited interim President Micheletti and communicated their support for the coup.
"Honduras's interim government should pay attention not to rump groups seeking publicity, but to senior Members of the Congress who stand with the Obama administration on behalf of democracy, diplomacy, and dialogue. We believe Honduras should act quickly and decisively to end this crisis and avoid entering a new presidency with this odious cloud hanging over its government."
The Center for Democracy in the Americas (CDA) is devoted to changing U.S. policy toward the countries of the Americas by basing our relations on mutual respect, recognizing positive models of governance in the region, and fostering dialogue particularly with those governments and movements with which U.S. policy is at odds.
Ms. Stephens testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs about the coup in Honduras on July 10, 2009.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith Claims Loophole to Give Billions to His Top Campaign Contributors was 'Unintended’
Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith Claims Loophole to Give Billions to His Top Campaign Contributors was 'Unintended’, According to the American Small Business League
(BUSINESS WIRE)--The following is a statement by the American Small Business League:
Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith (D-AL-5) is claiming that a bill he wrote would carry the ‘unintended consequence’ of allowing the subsidiaries of some of his largest campaign contributors to receive billions of dollars in federal small business contracts.
During an interview with the Times Daily newspaper regarding H.R. 3558, the Small Business Fair Competition Act, Congressman Griffith claimed that it was not his intention to create loopholes to allow two of his largest campaign contributors, Boeing and Northrop Grumman to land billions of dollars in federal small business contracts.
In the story, American Small Business League (ASBL) President Lloyd Chapman stated, "It is simply not believable that Congressman Griffith accidentally wrote a bill that is going to allow the subsidiaries of some of his largest campaign contributors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman to get small business contracts. It is absurd." (http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20090930/ARTICLES/909305008/1011/NEWS?Title=Griffith-Bill-needs-more-work)
The ASBL was the only organization to uncover the supposed accidental loophole. Yet, as opposed to thanking the organization, Griffith accused the group of seeking notoriety.
Recent data released by the Obama Administration indicates that Fortune 500 defense contractors in Congressman Griffith's district such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman and British Aerospace (BAE) are receiving federal small business contracts. Critics of Griffith and his bill believe that he was clearly trying to create a loophole to allow Fortune 500 corporations to continue to take contracts intended for small businesses.
Since 2003, over a dozen federal investigations have found that every year billions of dollars in federal small business contracts are diverted to Fortune 500 firms with a concentration on the defense and aerospace industry.
In 2005, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General referred to the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants as, "One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today." (http://www.asbl.com/documents/05-15.pdf)
Even President Obama weighed in on the issue, when in February of 2008 he released the statement, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants." (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php)
"Congressman Griffith's excuse that the language in H.R. 3558, that would allow large businesses to continue to receive federal small business contracts, was an accident is simply not believable," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. "It's ludicrous. I think Congressman Griffith is just another crooked politician and a classic example of everything the public hates about Washington. I think the American people are sick and tired of large corporations buying legislation from members of Congress, like Parker Griffith, that damage the middle class."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
(BUSINESS WIRE)--The following is a statement by the American Small Business League:
Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith (D-AL-5) is claiming that a bill he wrote would carry the ‘unintended consequence’ of allowing the subsidiaries of some of his largest campaign contributors to receive billions of dollars in federal small business contracts.
During an interview with the Times Daily newspaper regarding H.R. 3558, the Small Business Fair Competition Act, Congressman Griffith claimed that it was not his intention to create loopholes to allow two of his largest campaign contributors, Boeing and Northrop Grumman to land billions of dollars in federal small business contracts.
In the story, American Small Business League (ASBL) President Lloyd Chapman stated, "It is simply not believable that Congressman Griffith accidentally wrote a bill that is going to allow the subsidiaries of some of his largest campaign contributors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman to get small business contracts. It is absurd." (http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20090930/ARTICLES/909305008/1011/NEWS?Title=Griffith-Bill-needs-more-work)
The ASBL was the only organization to uncover the supposed accidental loophole. Yet, as opposed to thanking the organization, Griffith accused the group of seeking notoriety.
Recent data released by the Obama Administration indicates that Fortune 500 defense contractors in Congressman Griffith's district such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman and British Aerospace (BAE) are receiving federal small business contracts. Critics of Griffith and his bill believe that he was clearly trying to create a loophole to allow Fortune 500 corporations to continue to take contracts intended for small businesses.
Since 2003, over a dozen federal investigations have found that every year billions of dollars in federal small business contracts are diverted to Fortune 500 firms with a concentration on the defense and aerospace industry.
In 2005, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General referred to the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants as, "One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today." (http://www.asbl.com/documents/05-15.pdf)
Even President Obama weighed in on the issue, when in February of 2008 he released the statement, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants." (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php)
"Congressman Griffith's excuse that the language in H.R. 3558, that would allow large businesses to continue to receive federal small business contracts, was an accident is simply not believable," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. "It's ludicrous. I think Congressman Griffith is just another crooked politician and a classic example of everything the public hates about Washington. I think the American people are sick and tired of large corporations buying legislation from members of Congress, like Parker Griffith, that damage the middle class."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Leading Pro-Life Group Outraged by the Defeat of Pro-Life Amendments in Senate Finance Committee
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, in a vote of 10-13 in the Senate Finance Committee, the Hatch Amendment #C14 was defeated. The amendment would have explicitly prohibited federal funding and coverage of abortions. The Committee also voted down an amendment by Senator Hatch that would have prevented discrimination against any individual or entity who refused to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life recently met with the White House to discuss conscience protection and the lack of explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage in health care reform.
Dr. Yoest said that the defeat of these important amendments illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:
"President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform. Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action. The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform."
Here are the defeated pro-life amendments voted down in the Senate Finance Committee:
Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:
No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the
policy.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of
conscience
Description:
Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience
(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or
local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-
1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to
discrimination, or
2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) DEFINITION.-In this section, the term "health care entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life recently met with the White House to discuss conscience protection and the lack of explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage in health care reform.
Dr. Yoest said that the defeat of these important amendments illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:
"President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform. Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action. The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform."
Here are the defeated pro-life amendments voted down in the Senate Finance Committee:
Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:
No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the
policy.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of
conscience
Description:
Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience
(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or
local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-
1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to
discrimination, or
2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) DEFINITION.-In this section, the term "health care entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Doctor-Led Coalition Has Reservations With New Senate Healthcare Reform Bill
(BUSINESS WIRE)--The doctor-led Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights (Coalition) urged caution to legislators and the public as they consider Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s healthcare reform proposal, America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, which was released today.
“The devil is in the details,” former president of the American Medical Association and current spokesman of the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights Dr. Donald Palmisano said. “We have the best medical system in the world, so we want to make sure any reform goes to help fixing the problems – not creating new ones.”
The Coalition, which represents more than 10,000 people – mostly doctors and other healthcare professionals – has been a proponent of health system reform, but is concerned that current legislative options could have a negative impact on patient care. Specifically, the Coalition opposes a government-controlled public option which would lead to long waiting lines to see a doctor, substandard care, and an end to medical innovation. While the new Baucus bill does not include the public option there are other areas of potential worry.
“We will continue to review the bill, but already we have serious reservations with some aspects of the new proposed legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “Specifically, any co-op that serves as a Trojan horse for a government-controlled public option would be a non-starter. Additionally, we are very concerned about individual insurance mandates and a tax on health insurance plans. We want to expand patient options – not limit them. And we need to get costs under control – not increase them. And although I’m a doctor, I’m also a consumer and I know that if insurance companies are taxed, that cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.”
The Coalition agrees that more should be done to improve access to care for those who need it. Specifically, the Coalition supports market enhancements that expand access to health care for the uninsured like health savings accounts, tax credits, and vouchers for those who need them. Additionally, the Coalition believes that rising cost of healthcare could be slowed by implementing reforms such as comprehensive medical malpractice reform and the ability for individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. And patients should always have the right to privately contract with their physician, without government interference.
The Coalition, however, opposes cuts to Medicare. Early reports indicate that the new Senate bill would cut more than $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years.
“Already, there are many cases where Medicare is paying less for care than what it actually costs doctors to provide the care. By cutting Medicare even further, we would see senior citizens lose care and lose access to their doctors,” Dr. Palmisano said. “It’s a sad fact of life, but if doctors can’t afford to keep their practice with the patients they have, they’ll either leave the profession or go somewhere where they can.”
“We hope that legislators will work with medical professionals as they craft legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “The Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights has had dozens of productive meetings with elected officials and their staffs over the past several months and looks forward to working with Members of Congress in the weeks ahead as we all seek to improve patient care.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
“The devil is in the details,” former president of the American Medical Association and current spokesman of the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights Dr. Donald Palmisano said. “We have the best medical system in the world, so we want to make sure any reform goes to help fixing the problems – not creating new ones.”
The Coalition, which represents more than 10,000 people – mostly doctors and other healthcare professionals – has been a proponent of health system reform, but is concerned that current legislative options could have a negative impact on patient care. Specifically, the Coalition opposes a government-controlled public option which would lead to long waiting lines to see a doctor, substandard care, and an end to medical innovation. While the new Baucus bill does not include the public option there are other areas of potential worry.
“We will continue to review the bill, but already we have serious reservations with some aspects of the new proposed legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “Specifically, any co-op that serves as a Trojan horse for a government-controlled public option would be a non-starter. Additionally, we are very concerned about individual insurance mandates and a tax on health insurance plans. We want to expand patient options – not limit them. And we need to get costs under control – not increase them. And although I’m a doctor, I’m also a consumer and I know that if insurance companies are taxed, that cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.”
The Coalition agrees that more should be done to improve access to care for those who need it. Specifically, the Coalition supports market enhancements that expand access to health care for the uninsured like health savings accounts, tax credits, and vouchers for those who need them. Additionally, the Coalition believes that rising cost of healthcare could be slowed by implementing reforms such as comprehensive medical malpractice reform and the ability for individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. And patients should always have the right to privately contract with their physician, without government interference.
The Coalition, however, opposes cuts to Medicare. Early reports indicate that the new Senate bill would cut more than $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years.
“Already, there are many cases where Medicare is paying less for care than what it actually costs doctors to provide the care. By cutting Medicare even further, we would see senior citizens lose care and lose access to their doctors,” Dr. Palmisano said. “It’s a sad fact of life, but if doctors can’t afford to keep their practice with the patients they have, they’ll either leave the profession or go somewhere where they can.”
“We hope that legislators will work with medical professionals as they craft legislation,” Dr. Palmisano said. “The Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights has had dozens of productive meetings with elected officials and their staffs over the past several months and looks forward to working with Members of Congress in the weeks ahead as we all seek to improve patient care.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)