Government partially shuts down; Congress misses deadline

Monday, September 30, 2013

The morning sun illuminates the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, Sept. 30, 2013. (AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite)

 

WASHINGTON -- For the first time in nearly two decades, the federal government staggered into a partial shutdown Monday at midnight after congressional Republicans stubbornly demanded changes in the nation's health care law as the price for essential federal funding and President Barack Obama and Democrats adamantly refused. As Congress gridlocked, Obama said a "shutdown will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away," with hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed and veterans' centers, national parks, most of the space agency and other government operations shuttered.
He laid the blame at the feet of House Republicans, whom he accused of seeking to tie government funding to ideological demands, "all to save face after making some impossible promises to the extreme right wing of their party."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, responded a short while later on the House floor. "The American people don't want a shutdown and neither do I," he said. Yet, he added, the new health care law "is having a devastating impact. ... Something has to be done."
The stock market dropped on fears that political deadlock between the White House and a tea party-heavy Republican Party would prevail, though analysts suggested significant damage to the national economy was unlikely unless a shutdown lasted more than a few days.
A few minutes before midnight, Budget Director Sylvia Burwell issued a directive to federal agencies to "execute plans for an orderly shutdown." While an estimated 800,000 federal workers faced furloughs, some critical parts of the government - from the military to air traffic controllers - would remain open.
Any interruption in federal funding would send divided government into territory unexplored in nearly two decades. Then, Republicans suffered grievous political damage and President Bill Clinton benefitted from twin shutdowns. Now, some Republicans said they feared a similar outcome.
If nothing else, some Republicans also conceded it was impossible to use funding legislation to squeeze concessions from the White House on health care. "We can't win," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"We're on the brink," Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Md., said shortly after midday as the two houses maneuvered for political advantage and the Obama administration's budget office prepared for a partial shutdown, the first since the winter of 1995-1996.
On a long day and night in the Capitol, the Senate torpedoed one GOP attempt to tie government financing to changes in "Obamacare." House Republicans countered with a second despite unmistakable signs their unity was fraying - and Senate Democrats promptly rejected it, as well.
Defiant still, House Republicans decided to re-pass their earlier measure and simultaneously request negotiations with the Senate on a compromise. Some aides conceded the move was largely designed to make sure that the formal paperwork was on the Senate's doorstep as the day ended.
Whatever its intent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., rejected it. "That closes government. They want to close government," he said of House Republicans.
As lawmakers squabbled, Obama spoke bluntly about House Republicans. "You don't get to extract a ransom for doing your job, for doing what you're supposed to be doing anyway, or just because there's a law there that you don't like," he said. Speaking of the health care law that undergoes a major expansion on Tuesday, he said emphatically, "That funding is already in place. You can't shut it down."
Some Republicans balked, moderates and conservatives alike.
Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia said it felt as if Republicans were retreating, given their diminishing demands, and Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia said there was not unanimity when the rank and file met to discuss a next move.
Yet for the first time since the showdown began more than a week ago, there was also public dissent from the Republican strategy that has been carried out at the insistence of lawmakers working in tandem with GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa., said he was willing to vote for stand-alone legislation that would keep the government running and contained no health care-related provisions. "I would be supportive of it, and I believe the votes are there in the House to pass it at that point," the fifth-term congressman said.
Other Republicans sought to blame Democrats for any shutdown, but Dent conceded that Republicans would bear the blame, whether or not they deserved it.
Hours before the possible shutdown, the Senate voted 54-46 to reject the House-passed measure that would have kept the government open but would have delayed implementation of the health care law for a year and permanently repealed a medical device tax that helps finance it.
In response, House Republicans sought different concessions in exchange for allowing the government to remain open. They called for a one-year delay in a requirement in the health care law for individuals to purchase coverage. The same measure also would require members of Congress and their aides as well as the president, vice president and the administration's political appointees to bear the full cost of their own coverage by barring the government from making the customary employer contribution.
"This is a matter of funding the government and providing fairness to the American people," said Boehner. "Why wouldn't members of Congress vote for it?"
The vote was 228-201, with a dozen Republicans opposed and nine Democrats in favor.
Unimpressed, Senate Democrats swatted it on a 54-46 party line vote about an hour later.
Obama followed up his public remarks with phone calls to Boehner and the three other top leaders of Congress, telling Republicans he would continue to oppose attempts to delay or cut federal financing of the health care law.
The impact of a shutdown would be felt unevenly.
Many low-to-moderate-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers seeking government-backed mortgages could face delays, and Obama said veterans' centers would be closed.
About 800,000 federal workers, many already reeling from the effect of automatic budget cuts, would be ordered to report to work Tuesday for about four hours - but only to carry out shutdown-related chores such as changing office voicemail messages and completing time cards.
 

Some critical services such as patrolling the borders and inspecting meat would continue. Social Security benefits would be sent, and the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and poor would continue to pay doctors and hospitals.

U.S. troops were shielded from any damage to their wallets when Obama signed legislation assuring the military would be paid in the in the event of a shutdown.
That had no impact on those who labor at other agencies.
"I know some other employees, if you don't have money saved, it's going to be difficult," said Thelma Manley, who has spent seven years as a staff assistant with the Internal Revenue Service during a 30-year career in government.
As for herself, she said, "I'm a Christian, I trust in God wholeheartedly and my needs will be met." She added, "I do have savings, so I can go to the reserve, so to speak."

 

 

Government Hands More Than $1 Trillion to Wealthy While Deficit Is $642 Billion

Government Hands More Than $1 Trillion to Wealthy While Deficit Is $642 Billion
Tuesday, 17 September 2013 10:32 By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future

While our government is laying off hundreds and hundreds of thousands and cutting services in the name of cutting deficits, a new report exposes that taxpayers are handing more than $1 trillion a year to the wealthiest.
DC Focused On Deficits Not Jobs
Instead of focusing on jobs, Congress and the White House obsess on how to cut the budget -– the things We the People do to make our lives and economy better. While the “sequester” has already cost 900,000 jobs — 1.6 million thru 2014 — Republicans are threatening to shut down the government and force the country to default on its debt as leverage to force even more cuts.
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has repeatedly said the country is “broke.” For example, “We’re broke, broke going on bankrupt,” Boehner said Feb. 28, 2011. Here he is saying it on Dec. 11, 2012, “Let’s be honest. We’re broke.”
So we have to cut and cut and cut, even though the cuts are costing millions of jobs and damaging the economy and the prospects for our country and peoples’ future, because supposedly “we’re broke.”
New Report: More Than $1 Trillion Per Years Handed To Wealthiest
But a report out today from the National Priorities Project (NPP) shows that the country is handing more than $1 trillion to the already-wealthy.
That’s right, the government is cutting services and laying off hundreds upon hundreds of thousands in the name of cutting deficits, while handing more than $1 trillion a year to the wealthiest. The rest of us pay taxes and suffer cuts in jobs and services to make up this lost money.
According to the report, lots of 1%ers will pay no taxes at all this year, while the country cuts jobs and services in the name of cutting the deficit.

“Ten major tax breaks that together total more than $750 billion in tax savings in 2013 are tilted heavily in favor of the top income earners; according to the Congressional Budget Office, 17% of the benefits from these major tax breaks go to the top 1% of households. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center, nearly 1.2 million taxpayers in the top 1% will owe no income tax at all in 2013, thanks in large part to tax breaks that help them reduce their tax liability down to zero.”

Two of the key findings in the report tell the story:

• Corporate tax breaks will total $108 billion in FY2013 – more than 1.5 times what the U.S. government spends on education funding. Between 2007 and 2013, the revenue lost from U.S. corporations deferring taxes on income earned abroad rose 200%, going from $14 billion to $42 billion.
• All tax breaks for individuals will exceed $1 trillion this year, with about 17% of the biggest individual tax breaks going to the top 1% of earners. In fact, many individual tax breaks disproportionately benefit wealthy households.

The country’s budget shortfall is not from “entitlements” (things We the People are entitled to as citizens in a prosperous democracy) and “government spending” (the things We the People do to make our lives and economy better). The deficit is down to $640 billion while $1 trillion in tax breaks goes to the 1%. (Actually mostly the 1% of the 1%.)
Click through to read the entire NPP report, and here for a visualization of the impact.
Deficit Talk Is A Rigged Discussion
So why is the country terrified that budget deficits are going to eat us alive? Why don’t people know that the deficit is already down more than 50% from the levels Bush left behind and is falling at the fastest rate since the end of World War II? Why are Republicans able to get away threatening to shut the government and force the country into default in their drive to cut spending on the things that make our lives better?
The reason is that there is a massively-funded PR campaign underway to convince people of these things. Fix The Debt, for example, has pumped at least $60 million into a PR campaign to convince people that we have a deficit emergency and must therefore cut back on the things government does. Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson has pledged $1 billion toward the same end. These are just two sources of the massively-funded campaign to convince people that the government should be cut back, instead of hiring people to fix the infrastructure, instead of having universal health care, etc.
And those are just two examples. How many headlines like these has the public seen? Budget deficit reaching point of no return, 20 Must-See Charts On America’s Disastrous Level Of Government Spending, Budget, Deficit, Debt Disaster, Deficits Must Be Curbed or It’s Disaster For Economy: Study and on and on and on.
And now we learn that the government is handing more than $1 trillion to the 1% and their corporations, while the deficit in only $640 billion and falling.
A Corruption Spiral
We are witnessing here a corruption spiral. This is big money using money to influence the government to give them even more money. And they then use that more money to influence the government even more to give them even more more money. And they then use that more money to influence the government even more more to give them even more more more money. And they then use that more more money to influence the government even more more more to give them even more more  money. And then …
What Can We Do About This?
This is about the powerful predatory pigs feeding at the trough and taking it out on the weak. It has to stop.
How do we stop the corruption spiral that is eating our economy, our jobs and the things We the People do to make our lives better? We must get the money out of politics — and out of the national discussion. Money is not “speech.” In a democracy each person having an equal say is “speech.”
Corporate money is supposed to be used to run the corporation, period. Corporations use their money to drive the purposes of the corporation. So corporations by definition cannot use their money without the expectation of getting something in return. Even the use of corporate money to fund a Little League team is for the purpose of advertising and “brand development.” So giving money to a politician is done with the expectation of getting a tax break, a contract, a patent or some other form of advantage over competitors or otherwise increasing its profits. According to the law giving anything of value to any public official with the intent of influencing that official is bribery. It is not speech to give money to a politician, it is bribery. It is corruption.
By the same token, corporations giving their money to lobbying operations is done with the same intent. It is done to influence politicians or use front groups to drive support to politicians (a thing of value) to get them to do something that financially rewards that corporation.
And of course those with the most money are able to have the most influence. Which brings them more money. Which brings them more influence. This increased influence brings them more money, which brings them more influence. This increased influence brings them more money, which brings them more influence. This increased influence brings them more money, which brings them more influence. This increased influence brings them more money, which brings them more influence. This increased influence brings them more money, which brings them more influence. This increased influence brings them more money, which brings them more influence.
Again, a corruption spiral that eats our economy, jobs and democracy.
Corporate money must be banned from politics or otherwise influencing policy. Corporate money should be used to operate the corporation, period.
So how do we stop the influence of the billionaires? We just learned that the Koch brothers ran a group that pumped almost a quarter of a billion dollars into the last election (that we know of). Aside from that, according to the Sunlight Foundation, the 1% of the 1% funded a huge share of the election all by themselves.
The answer here is of course limiting the amounts individuals can put into campaigns and banning efforts to influence elections outside of campaigns themselves. This includes a complete crackdown on the use of special-tax-status organizations in election activities, front groups, etc.
These steps will at least be a start, and will give democracy a bit of breathing room. Then We the People might be able to figure out where to go from there.
   

Corporations Are Getting Whatever They Want. From Court Rulings.

4 Recent Supreme Court Rulings Show Which Way the Wind Is Blowing: Corporations Are Getting Whatever They Want

          AlterNet / By Steven Rosenfeld

Corporate America is winning and changing the way future judges can rule.

 

June 24, 2013  |  They are not the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated rulings on same-sex marriage, voting rights and affirmative action, but the last week has seen a string of alarming decisions that strengthen the corporate assault on ordinary Americans, primarily by restricting American’s access to jury trials or making it harder to win in court.
Consider these four recent Supreme Court decisions where the Court’s right-wing majority is denying justice or raising legal standards of proof to prevail. These cases underscore how federal court rulings—not just big money in campaigns and lobbying—are part of corporate America’s playbook.
1. Arbritration yes, trial by jury no! In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Court majority held that signing a contract with an arbitration agreement precludes the right to a jury trial. This case involved a restaurant chain that didn’t want to pay American Express’ high fees for a services it didn’t use, but had signed a contract. The Court took AmEx’s side, saying a "bad" contract is still a contract, pushing more individuals and small businesses outside the legal system. That ongoing trend favors corporate power, as individuals and small businesses lose access to lawsuits.
2. Generic drug takers can’t sue? In this complex case decided Monday, the Court ruled that if you are taking a generic medication lacking warning labels and you have a bad reaction, you can’t sue the generic drug maker. “If you were prescribed the brand-name drug’s generic copy—which public policy has favored for three decadess—your suit against the generic manufacturer is kaput. Got that?” wrote Brian Wolfman, on Public Citizen’s Consumer Law and Policy blog. “Another loss for injured consumers' access to the courts .”
3. Co-worker harassment—forget suing! In an employment case also decided Monday, the Court’s right-wing majority held that an employee cannot sue her employer if she's harassed at work by a co-worker. Instead, she can only sue the employer if the hostility is created by a supervisor—which is not the same as a bossy and harassing colleague.
“Until today, our decisions have assumed that employees who direct subordinates’ daily work are supervisors,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a dissent that was signed by three other more moderate justices. “This realignment will leave many harassment victims without an effective remedy.”
4. Racial harassment at work—prove it! In another workplace retaliation case decided Monday, an Arabic doctor who claimed that his new supervisor at a Texas medical center was racially prejudiced and forced him to quit, saw his civil rights lawsuit sent back to a lower court with new and tougher instructions for proving racial discrimination.
That fact that the new supervisor was heard saying, “Middle Easterners are lazy,” among other things, was not specific enough to allow the Arabic doctor to sue and win in lower federal court. Instead, the Court’s conservative majority said the physician had to prove his claim more specifically.
The Court’s minority, led by Ginsburg, wrote that real life isn’t always so specific.

“This point, lost on the Court, was not lost on Congress. When Title VII was enacted, Congress considered and rejected an amendment that would have placed the word “solely” before “because of [the complainant’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” …Senator Case, a prime sponsor of Title VII, commented that a “sole cause” standard would render the Act “totally nugatory.” Life does not shape up that way, the Senator suggested, comment­ing “[i]f anyone ever had an action that was motivated by a single cause, he is a different kind of animal from any I know of.” 

 

 

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

 

 They are not the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated rulings on same-sex marriage, voting rights and affirmative action, but the last week has seen a string of alarming decisions that strengthen the corporate assault on ordinary Americans, primarily by restricting American’s access to jury trials or making it harder to win in court.

 

 

 

 

President Obama's $9 Minimum Wage Wouldn't Solve Working Poor Problem: Study

$9 Minimum Wage Wouldn't Solve Working Poor Problem
The Huffington Post  |  By Caroline Fairchild Posted: 07/03/2013 3:43 pm



 
 America still working for peanuts at $10.00 an hour.

When President Barack Obama called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour in his 2013 State Of The Union Address, he defended the pitch by saying "no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty."
Unfortunately for him, it appears $9 per hour won't quite do the trick.
A recent report by the Brookings Institute, a nonprofit research organization, has found that a $9-per-hour minimum wage would increase the earnings of low-income households by only 7 percent, jumping to $11,828 from $11,047 on average. Any family of four earning $23,550 or less per year is defined as impoverished, according to the Census Bureau.
One reason is that many low-income households -- which Brookings defines as living in the bottom-third of the country's income distribution -- are supported by workers who already earn more than $9 per hour. For those supported by a someone making less than that, the benefits a $9-per-hour minimum wage would be more significant.
The below chart illustrates as much:

Brookings notes that its financial estimates of a minimum wage increase are conservative, as a higher minimum wage may also make Americans more likely to work, which would further increase the income gains to low-income households.
The federal minimum wage currently stands at $7.25. Legislation has been introduced since the State of the Union that proposes bumping it to $10 per hour.
A previous study by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, a national organization focusing on racial equity in the restaurant industry, found that increasing the minimum wage to $10 per hour would be enough to push more than half of the working poor out of poverty.

 

 

Sequester Slashes Unemployment Benefits, But Not Corporate Welfare

April 3, 2013 3:33 pm
”Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — Albert Einstein

What’s worse than Congress obsessively focusing on slashing government spending instead of creating jobs? Screwing over all the people who haven’t been able to land non-existent jobs even more by cutting their skimpy unemployment benefits. Who cares that it’s the GOP’s fault that so many folks are unemployed? A bleak January Jobs report proves that their austerity has slowed down our economic recovery, plus their decades of deregulation allowed the banks to wreck our economy in the first place. Let’s keep implementing their sucky policies and see what happens.
Travis Waldron from Think Progress warns that soon the skeletal hand of sequestration will extend its bony fingers to snatch away the long-term jobless’ last lifeline. Thanks to the sequester — which went into effect on March 1st — the federal government’s Emergency Unemployment Compensation will be cut. This program provides extended unemployment benefits for people who’ve been unemployed for longer than six months, after they’ve used up their state benefits. According to Paul Davidson from USA Today, unemployment checks currently average a stingy $300 per week — which MSN Money‘s Life Coach flat-out declares is “nearly impossible” for Americans to get by on for very long. Nonetheless, it’s better than nothing.
Unfortunately, nothing is what many Americans will soon get. Nancy Cook from the National Journal writes that roughly two million people stand to lose their benefits:
Moreover, they are people whom the political establishment has largely forgotten. There are no new stimulus programs on the horizon for the long-term unemployed, nor is there anything new to help train them or connect them to jobs. Those still receiving benefit checks will see them whacked by as much as $450 in total between now and the end of the fiscal year in September, according to Labor Department estimates—all due to spending cuts that both parties consider ill-advised and indiscriminate.

Even more alarmingly, Waldron also reports that eight states have already brutally slashed their unemployment programs, with an estimated loss of $582-$4,161 per unemployed person, depending on their state. And … big surprise! Five out of eight of these states are in the South (more on that shortly).

Weeks of unemployment benefits lost, due to state cuts. Chart from Think Progress.

According to Waldron, cutting unemployment benefits will further slow the economy:

America’s unemployment program, stingy as it is, also has benefits for the economy: the Congressional Budget Office estimated that failure to extend the federal program at the beginning of the year would have cost the country 300,000 jobs.

This would force even more desperate people to take sub-living wage jobs with crappy employers like Walmart — if they’re even still hiring — and force American tax payers to cover food stamps, housing subsidies, and other necessities that these jobs don’t pay enough for workers to afford. Well, at least until the Republicans cut those programs as well. Walmart IS the original corporate welfare queen, after all.
Furthermore, IF you agree that (a) Forcing people to work for less than a living wage is a form of slavery; (b) Republican policies are dominated by southerners; and (c) The South’s lack of economic development model has always heavily relied on slave labor (though the skin color of their slaves has changed over the years); THEN it grows increasingly obvious that cutting benefits for unemployed people is just the latest step along the GOP’s primrose path to economic slavery (as brilliantly argued in an article by my AI colleague, Sanghoee, and by Imara Jones in ColorLines).
After forty years of imposing disastrous policies, conservatives have succeeded in wrecking the economy and destroying the middle class job base. Now all they need to do is shred our already-frayed social safety net, and the American people will be primed to do our corporate masters’ bidding.
SPECIAL NOTE TO OUR UNEMPLOYED READERS: If you’re unemployed and worry that you might lose your benefits, my AI colleague Tiffany Willis compiled an extensive list to help you find the resources you need. She knows what’s talking about, because she worked in workforce development for the State of Texas for over a decade. She also invites you to post questions to her on Twitter (@tiffany_willis). She’s only one person and doesn’t have a team of operators standing by, but she loves helping people and will do her best.

How Congress' Retirement Package Compares to Yours

democrat or republican, this is bullshit

Discussion in 'Politics' started by APdeliveries, Mar 13, 2013.

By Paul O'Donnell | CNBC
While extending the payroll tax cut through the end of last year, members of Congress last fall took what many feel was a long overdue whack at the cost of their retirement plan. They bumped up the rate at which federal employees contribute to their pension plan, saving an estimated $15 billion over the next 11 years.
They also made sure that none of the increase applied to themselves. Anyone in service before the law went into effect would pay into the pension plan at the old rate.
For all the talk you hear from Capitol Hill about running government more like a business, Congress has a retirement plan that would make any Fortune 500 executive blush. Members can retire younger, having contributed fewer of their own dollars, than almost any worker in the country - even more than the generous terms other federal workers get.
At a time when traditional pensions are disappearing and many workers are struggling to save for retirement, the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), an old-school defined benefit pension program, pays 215 former congressmen and women an average of $39,576, for an average of 16 years of service, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report .
That's about what the average private-sector worker makes in retirement from all sources after a lifetime of work, according to the Employees Benefits Research Institute. The average income that worker gets from a pension is about $8,800 - if they have one. In 2010, fewer than 15 percent of private sector employees were enrolled in a defined-benefit pension.
"It's not keeping pace with what's happening in the private sector," said Veronique de Rugy, a senior researcher with George Mason University's Mercatus Center. "It's not sustainable."
It's inaccurate, in fact, to refer a single retirement plan, since any senator or representative elected after 1986 has access to three: Social Security, a 401(k) program that matches 5 percent of their contributions up to $17,500, and FERS, which as the name implies covers anyone paid from the federal till.
FERS alone is a plan any U.S. worker would envy. As Jim Kessler, co-founder of the think tank Third Way and a former congressional aide, said, "It's not wrong to have three plans, but the matching is one-to-one for two of them and the other [FERS] is one-to-14."
 
As a result, all federal employees get a return on their FERS contributions at a rate that's almost double what other workers do. (See chart.) But thanks to a faster accrual rate granted to elected employees-how fast the value of their benefits pile up-members of Congress even get a higher percentage payout on FERS for the same time served than other federal workers do.
According to calculations by Pete Sepp, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, who has been tracking congressional benefits for decades, an executive branch employee with 10 years of service and who is retiring at age 62 this year would begin his pension at roughly $15,600. But a member of Congress of identical age, salary and service would begin at approximately $26,600, reflecting his higher contribution. But for his extra $11,000 in the first year's benefit, the lawmaker will have contributed only $8,350 more to the plan.
U.S. Capitol building in Washington. REUTERS/Jason Reed/Files Defenders of the system point out that elected politicians have less job security than appointees like our executive branch workers. Sepp doesn't buy it. "Not only do you get a lot more in benefits for the extra you pay," he said, "but how many Cabinet secretaries stay in government for even eight years?"
Some critics say congressional retirement plans are not only too numerous and too generous, but the wrong kind. One of them is Republican Rep. Mike Coffman, who has put forward a bill with a fellow Coloradan, Democrat Jared Polis, that would end FERS.
"It makes no sense for Congress to continue to reward itself using taxpayer dollars, with a defined benefit plan when ... much of the country has moved to a defined contribution plan like a 401K," Coffman said in a statement earlier this year.
But as Washington is consumed with the sequester, the chances that Coffman and Polis' bill, or the $25 million we spend to support our congressional retirees, will get much notice. More pundits have teed off on the fact that our senators and representatives-the very people charged with averting the automatic cuts to the federal budget-are among the few federal employees who won't be touched by them.
Congress didn't enjoy plush pensions until 1946, when it was thought that a gold-plated plan would induce members to cede their seats to young men who had been galvanized by the war. But if the current deal is no longer gold-plated, said Sepp, "it's silver-plated, and it hasn't been attractive enough to get them rotated out of office."

Brace yourself for a government shutdown 2013

The hallowed halls of Congress could get very quiet.

Peter Weber September 17, 2013 2:50 AM The Week

The Republican-led House and the White House are once again on a collision course, and the endpoint of their game of budgetary chicken is a federal government shutdown, starting October 1. We've seen this movie before, and we think we know how it ends: Both sides give enough, a deal is reached, and partisans of each camp are generally unhappy.

This time may be different. Every plot gets stale after a while, and Washington may be getting bored with repeating the same story for the third year running. But boredom alone won't shut down the government.

The big change this time is that all the major players — President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), congressional Democrats, and Tea Party Republicans — each have their own reasons not to compromise on the big stumbling block: The Tea Partiers insist that any budget agreement neuter ObamaCare by stripping it of funding; that's a nonstarter for Democrats.
Here's a look at each camp, and what they have to gain (and lose) by riding out the looming political storm:

President Obama
The Obama White House "has been annoyingly open to concessions even when it has all the leverage," says Noah Scheiber at The New Republic. But "in my own conversations with White House officials (and people close to them) over the past few months, I've picked up a clear willingness to allow a shutdown if Republicans refuse to budge" on the budget this time. What's changed from past fiscal fights? Basically, Scheiber says, Obama doesn't have to face re-election anymore:

 

In 2011, [Obama aides] were queasy about the risks a shutdown posed to the rickety economy, which could ultimately hurt the president. This year, they believe a shutdown would strengthen their hand politically, which is almost certainly true given the public outrage that would rain down on Republicans. One official pointed out that the pressure for spending cuts has subsided with the deficit falling so rapidly on its own. [New Republic]

On Monday, Obama indicated that, at least in public, he's solidly against a government shutdown: "Let's stop the threats. Let's stop the political posturing. Let's keep our government open. Let's pay our bills on time. Let's pass a budget."

Tea Party Republicans
The conventional wisdom is that a government shutdown would hurt Republicans. History endorses the idea, and current polling bears it out. But a sizable faction of House Republicans doesn't buy it.
Instead, Tea Party–aligned Republicans believe "a weakened President Obama will back down if there is a standoff over funding ObamaCare and preventing a government shutdown," say Erik Wasson and Peter Schroeder at The Hill. Why would they believe the president would sign anything that would undermine his biggest domestic achievement?

 

At least 43 conservatives want the GOP leadership to go for broke, asserting that Obama has been damaged by stumbles over Syria and by several delays in implementing the Affordable Care Act.... Conservatives cite recent polling to buttress their case. Following Obama's aborted attempt to get congressional backing for an attack on Syria, Fox News found public disapproval of Obama's job performance at an all-time high of 54 percent and his approval rating at 40 percent, equal to his all-time low. [The Hill]

The GOP probably would take the blame for a government shutdown, says Erick Erickson at RedState, but it's worth the cost. If Republicans "held the line until defunding happened, they would be rewarded."

 

The public likes winners. And right now "Defund It!" is the winning message. It has boosted the GOP's popularity and Congress' approval rating. It will be devastating for the GOP if they show voters just how much they are not willing to fight. It'll be "read my lips" all over again. [RedState]

Speaker Boehner
As a political matter, "Republican leaders know it's in their best interest not to have the government shut down," says National Journal's Ben Terris. And nobody knows that more than Boehner, who's still publicly holding out hope that the Tea Partiers will sign onto a plan that would separate ObamaCare funding from the rest of the budget.
Fat chance the GOP dissidents will sign on for that, says The New Republic's Scheiber. But "in the end, a shutdown is in Boehner's interest, too."

Boehner clearly prefers to avoid a government shutdown. He's spent months figuring out how to do that, fully aware of the political debacle it would entail. Unfortunately, it's now clear that the only way he can induce the political isolation he typically relies on to prod his caucus into semi-rational action is by shutting down the government and inviting the public backlash he's been so desperate to avoid. Boehner simply has no other way of talking sense into his people, no other hope of making the House GOP governable. [The New Republic]

Jonathan Bernstein at The Washington Post disagrees. The thing about a government shutdowns is that it ends — and when it does, he says, the Tea Party wing will loudly complain that "if only Boehner and congressional Republicans had held out a little while longer, Obama would have surrendered and Republicans would have won a total victory."

Bottom line: Expect Barack Obama to be a tougher negotiator this time around and expect Boehner to do all he can to cut a deal to avoid disaster. [Washington Post]

Congressional Democrats
Boehner may need to rely on House Democrats to pass a budget or stopgap spending measure, but there's a good chance he'd have to pay for the support with higher spending levels than the GOP wants. Like Tea Party Republicans, congressional Democrats — fresh off defeating Obama's top choice for Federal Reserve chairman, Larry Summers — believe they have the leverage in this political fight.
Even if Obama seems inclined to accept Republicans' demands for keeping the budget at lower sequestration levels, says The New Republic's Scheiber, "congressional Democrats seem less willing to support him than in the past":

They believe they can demand much more in exchange for saving the GOP from a shutdown.... Bottom line: Democrats across the board are more willing to broach a shutdown than at any other time during the past three years. [New Republic]

 

View this article on TheWeek.com

“Is the microchip implant hidden in the Obama Healthcare Bill?

Whether or not the microchip requirement in the bill is implemented by 2013, remains to be seen.

Worldtruth.tv    2 August 2012

 In 2010, my book “Are You Ready for the Microchip?” was released, and I asked the question “Is the microchip implant hidden in the Healthcare Bill? Are newborn children starting in 2013 going to receive a microchip shortly after birth?” Then in the book, I wrote, “ In the massive US HEALTHCARE BILL, which your elected representatives voted for without reading, there is a section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521 – National Medical Device Registry which states:

“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarked safety and outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.

 

 

 

 

 

 The language is deliberately vague, but it provides the structure for making America the first nation in the world that would require every U.S. citizen to receive an implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling medical care.

For those of you still thinking this is a lie, feel free to check out the bill H.R. 3200 from;

 

                                     IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                                      JULY 14, 2009

            Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER

            of California, Mr. STARK, Mr. PALLONE, and Mr. ANDREWS) introduced

            the following bill;

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf

 A number of states like Virginia, have passed “stop the mark of the beast legislation” in an effort to stop this kind of legislation.

As with numerous other things that I have written and spoken about based on solid documentation, I am regularly challenged by some, and especially those in the Christian community, who are clueless about what is going on. Their criticism has never prevented me from presenting the facts, because I never take a poll about what I write or speak on. A Christian is called to speak the truth in love, whether or not it is accepted. I am not trying to disparage any ministry, but I don’t determine what I say based on whether or not it is “seeker friendly,” or popular. The only issue is, is it true and is it wise to communicate it at that particular time? 

There are many things that I could say, but don’t, because there many people in our nation who, when confronted with a truth that is outside the box of their socially engineered consciousness, go into cognitive dissonance. As the microchip implant moves closer day by day, along with the “manufactured crisis” of illegal immigration, the problems of states like Arizona are creating an environment where Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are moving legislation forward that would require all U.S. workers, citizens and resident alike, to obtain and carry a National Biometric ID Card in order to work within the United States. It does not matter where you stand on the issue of amnesty or immigration; everyone is going to have to have a National Biometric ID Card that will eventually contain an RFID transmitter which will allow Big Brother electronic data bases to track all of your personal information. It is a simply a national ID card under another name. The national ID card will transition into a microchip implant, because that is technically more efficient. All of this which is about to happen very soon, is just the tip of the iceberg.

 President Ronald Reagan refused to pass what he called this “Mark of the Beast” legislation. In my book, “Are You Ready for the Microchip?” I examine the careful wording in the Health Care Bill which calls for a Med-Chip and a microchip implant. It was never hidden; it is simply Republican and Democrat, along with our corporate-controlled and Orwellian media, who deliberately chose to ignore it. The Bilderberg Group gave orders to microchip the entire U.S. population and then the world. Before the Health Care Bill was passed, the target date was set for the year 2013, when every baby born in the U.S. will receive a microchip at birth. Many are attacking President Obama for this, but although it is the Obama Health Care Bill, the microchip plan was created decades ago and put onto the fast track by the Republican Administration of President George Bush and his allegedly “born-again” Attorney General, John Ashcroft, after 911. It seems Ashcroft was more concerned about covering up the breasts of a Lady Liberty statue in the hallway of the Department of Justice, than he was about protecting our Constitutional liberties, which include the freedom of religion. If you still can’t believe it then feel free to check out these 2 additional government website explaining the chip.

http://worldtruth.tv/all-americans-will-receive-a-microchip-implant-in-2013-per-obamacare/1) Use of Biometric Technology to Reduce Fraud in the Food Stamp Program.

 2) Enhancing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Certification: SNAP Modernization Efforts

 

 

Obama Signs ‘NDAA’ 2013 Without Objecting to Indefinite Detention of Americans.

Obama Signs ‘NDAA’ 2013 Without Objecting to Indefinite Detention of Americans.

world truth January 15, 2013

President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, giving his stamp of approval to a Pentagon spending bill that will keep Guantanamo Bay open and make indefinite detention for US citizens as likely as ever.

The president inked his name to the 2013 NDAA on Wednesday evening to little fanfare, and accompanied his signature with a statement condemning a fair number of provisions contained in a bill that he nevertheless endorsed.

The NDAA, an otherwise mundane annual bill that lays out the use of funds for the Department of Defense, has come under attack during the Obama administration for the introduction of a provision last year that allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. Under the 2012 NDAA’s Sec. 1021, Pres. Obama agreed to give the military the power to arrest and hold Americans without the writ of habeas corpus, although he promised with that year’s signing statement that his administration would not abuse that privilege.

In response to the controversial indefinite detention provision from last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced an amendment in December 2012 that would have forbid the government from using military force to indefinitely detain Americans without trial under the 2013 NDAA. Although that provision, dubbed the “Feinstein Amendment,” passed the Senate unanimously, a select panel of lawmakers led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stripped it from the final version of the NDAA two week later before it could clear Congress. In exchange, Congress added a provision, Sec. 1029, that claims to ensure that “any person inside the United States” is allowed their constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, but supporters of the Feinstein Amendment say that the swapped wording does nothing to erase the indefinite detention provision from the previous year.

“Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said after the Feinstein Amendment was removed.

“Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury,” Sen. Paul added.

Although the Pres. Obama rejected the indefinite detention clause when signing the 2012 NDAA, a statement issued late Wednesday from the White House failed to touch on the military’s detainment abilities. On the other hand, Pres. Obama did voice his opposition to a number of provisions included in the latest bill, particularly ones that will essentially render his promise of closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison impossible.

Despite repeated pleas that Gitmo will be closed on his watch, Pres. Obama failed to do as much during his first term in the White House. Thanks to a provision in the 2013 NDAA, the Pentagon will be unable to use funds to transfer detainees out of that facility and to other sights, ensuring they will remain at the top-secret military prison for the time being.

“Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the president the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by one,” Pres. Obama writes.

Congress, claims the president, designed sections of the new defense bill “in order to foreclose my ability to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.”

“I continue to believe that operating the facility weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and strengthening our enemies,” he says.

Elsewhere, the president claims that certain provisions in the act threaten to interview with his “constitutional duty to supervise the executive branch” of the United States.

Before the 2013 NDAA was finalized, it was reported by the White House that Pres. Obama would veto the legislation over the provisions involving Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, the White House originally said the president would veto the 2012 NDAA over the indefinite detention provisions, although he signed it regardless “with reservations” on December 31 of that year.

Since authorizing the 2012 NDAA, the president has been challenged in federal court by a team of plaintiffs who say that the indefinite detention clause is unconstitutional. US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA violated the US Constitution and granted a permanent injunction on the Obama administration from using that provision, but the White House successfully fought to appeal that decision.

Commenting on the latest signing, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero says, "President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day.”

“His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended,” adds Romero. "He also has jeopardized his ability to close Guantanamo during his presidency. Scores of men who have already been held for nearly 11 years without being charged with a crime--including more than 80 who have been cleared for transfer--may very well be imprisoned unfairly for yet another year. The president should use whatever discretion he has in the law to order many of the detainees transferred home, and finally step up next year to close Guantanamo and bring a definite end to indefinite detention."

 

What is the Most Screwed Up Thing About Your State? Check This Chart

What is the Most Screwed Up Thing About Your State? Check This Chart

For all the U-S-A, U-S-A rah that goes around, the United States can be a shameful place. 

The below map lays out some of the statistically worst things about each state. It covers everything from health to crime to travel to drug use. Some states don't have it so bad (Ohio, the "nerdish") but others really kind of suck (Mississippi has the highest rate of obesity at 35.3% of total population ... and ranks poorly in the most number of categories. These include highest rate of child poverty at 31.9%, highest rate of infant mortality at 10.3% lowest median household income at $35,078, highest teen birth rate at 71.9 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 and highest overall rate of STDs. Phew.)

It's not 100% science proof ... some of the metrics are taken from purely qualitative rankings (i.e. North Dakota).

It's supposed to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but some of the stats will really shock you.

 

 

Rationale and statistics:

Most stats taken from America's Health Rankings and the U.S. Census unless otherwise noted. (Note - data varies and is not based on 2013 numbers)

1. Alabama: highest rate of stroke (3.8%) (Tied with Oklahoma)

2. Alaska: highest suicide rate (23.6 suicides per 100,000 people in 2004)

3. Arizona: highest rate of alcoholism

4. Arkansas: worst average credit score (636) Source.

5. California: most air pollution (15.2 micrograms per cubic meter)

6. Colorado: highest rate of cocaine use per capita (3.9% total population)

7. Connecticut: highest rate of breast cancer Source.

8. Delaware: highest abortion rate (27 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44)

9. Florida: highest rate of identity theft (122.3 reports per 100,000 people)

10. Georgia: sickly based on highest rate of influenza

11. Hawaii –highest cost of living (tied with California) Source.

12. Idaho – lowest level of Congressional clout Source.

13. Illinois: highest rate of robbery (284.7 incidences per 100,000 people)

14. Indiana: rated the most environmentally unfriendly by NMI solutions Source.

15. Iowa: highest percentage of people age 85 and older (1.8 percent) (tied with three other states) Source.

16. Kansas: poorest health based on highest average number of limited activity days per month (3.5 days) Source.

17. Kentucky: most cancer deaths (227 per 100,000 people) (BONUS fact: Kentucky also has the highest rate of tobacco smokers – 25.6%)

18. Louisiana: highest rate of gonorrhea (264.4 reported cases per 100,000 people) Source.

19. Maine: dumbest state claim based on lowest average SAT score (1389) Source.

20. Maryland: highest rate of AIDS diagnosis (27.6 people per 100,000 people) Source.

21. Massachusetts: worst drivers claim based on highest rate of auto accidents Source.

22. Michigan: highest unemployment rate (13.6%)

23. Minnesota: highest number of reported tornadoes (123 in 2010) Source.

24. Mississippi: highest rate of obesity (35.3% of total population)

BONUS facts: Mississippi ranks poorly in the most number of categories. These include highest rate of child poverty (31.9%), highest rate of infant mortality (10.3%) lowest median household income ($35,078), highest teen birth rate (71.9 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19) and highest overall rate of STDs.

25. Missouri: highest rate of bankruptcy (700 out of every 100,000 people) Source.

26. Montana: highest rate of drunk driving deaths (1.12 deaths per 100 million miles driven) Source.

27. Nebraska: highest rate of women murdered annually

28. Nevada: highest rate violent crime (702.2 offenses per 100,000 people). BONUS fact: Nevada also has the highest rate of foreclosure (one in 99 houses).

29. New Hampshire: highest rate of corporate taxes Source.

30. New Jersey: highest rate of citizen taxation (11.8%) Source.

31. New Mexico: antisocial claim based on lowest ranking in social heath policies Source.

32. New York: longest average daily commute (30.6 minutes)  Source.

33. North Carolina: lowest average teacher salary Source.

34. North Dakota: ranked last in ugliest residents report as chosen by The Daily Beast. Source.

35. Ohio: nerdish state claim based on highest number of library visits per capita (6.9) Source.

36. Oklahoma: highest rate of female incarceration

37. Oregon: highest rate of long-term homeless people

38. Pennsylvania: highest rate of arson deaths (55.56 annually) Source.

39. Rhode Island: highest rate of illicit drug use (12.5% of population) Source.

40. South Carolina: highest percentage of mobile homes (18.8%) Source.

41. South Dakota: highest rate of forcible rape 76.5 per 100,000

42. Tennessee: chosen most corrupt state by The Daily Beast. Source.

43. Texas: lowest high school graduation rate (78.3%) Source.

44. Utah: highest rate of  online porn subscriptions Source.

45. Vermont: infertility claim based on lowest birth rate of any state (10.6 births per 1,000) (tied with Maine) Source.

46. Virginia: highest number of alcohol-related motorcycle deaths Source.

47. Washington: most cases of bestiality (4 reported in 2010) Source.

48. West Virginia: highest rate of heart attack (6.5 percent of population)

49. Wisconsin: highest rate of binge drinking (23.2 percent of population)

50. Wyoming: highest rate of deadly car crashes (24.6 deaths per 100,000) Source.