/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council condemned the decision today by President Obama that the U.S. Justice Department will abdicate its responsibility and no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) enacted overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, is currently under attack in the courts.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read the Family Research Council's pamphlet on the Act here: http://www.frc.org/doma
Read the Family Research Council's amicus brief in the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act case here: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-us-department-of-health-and-human-services
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Judicial Watch Details Ambitious Investigative Agenda for 112th Congress
/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its list of investigative priorities for the new 112th Congress. The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.
Climategate: Including, but not limited to, the U.S. federal government's involvement in the international scheme to exaggerate the rise in world temperature readings, the Environmental Protection Agency's hyper-aggressive campaign to expand control over the economy through carbon restrictions and various controversies involving taxpayer-supported "green energy" programs.
Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.
Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government's legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under "conservatorship;" and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.
Illegal Immigration: Including, but not limited to, the President's attempts to enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens without approval by Congress; deteriorating security on the nation's southern border with Mexico; and the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws.
National Security: Including, but not limited to, the Obama administration's mishandling of Guantanamo Bay and the decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts on U.S. soil.
Obama Administration Czars: Including, but not limited to, the President's decision to bypass Senate confirmation and appoint "czars" to hold positions of power within the Obama administration as well as various corruption scandals involving individual "czars."
Obamacare: Including, but not limited to, the criteria used by the Obama administration to provide "waivers" to companies and unions exempting them from provisions of Obamacare; the Obama administration's decision to evaluate medical treatments based solely on cost; and the regulation and funding of Obamacare in general.
Pension Fraud: Including, but not limited to, the funding and management of public pension plans for municipal, state and unionized government workers.
Politicization at the Department of Justice: Including, but not limited to racially and politically motivated decision-making in federal civil and voting rights enforcement (such as the decision to largely abandon a voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers); Justice's decision to attack states that attempt to address illegal immigration through enhanced law enforcement measures; and the duties and responsibilities of lawyers inside Justice who previously represented terrorists.
White House Bribery: Including, but not limited to, an effort by the Obama administration to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to candidates Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for abandoning their campaigns.
"The American people spoke clearly on Election Day: No more backroom deals, no more influence peddling and no more corruption. This new Congress has an obligation to honor the intense desire by the American people to clean up corruption in Washington," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The federal government has grown by trillions of dollars, yet much of this historic new government activity (and control) has escaped effective congressional oversight. It is well past time for Congress to help pry loose information from the Obama administration, which is the most secretive in recent American history."
ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.
Climategate: Including, but not limited to, the U.S. federal government's involvement in the international scheme to exaggerate the rise in world temperature readings, the Environmental Protection Agency's hyper-aggressive campaign to expand control over the economy through carbon restrictions and various controversies involving taxpayer-supported "green energy" programs.
Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.
Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government's legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under "conservatorship;" and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.
Illegal Immigration: Including, but not limited to, the President's attempts to enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens without approval by Congress; deteriorating security on the nation's southern border with Mexico; and the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws.
National Security: Including, but not limited to, the Obama administration's mishandling of Guantanamo Bay and the decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts on U.S. soil.
Obama Administration Czars: Including, but not limited to, the President's decision to bypass Senate confirmation and appoint "czars" to hold positions of power within the Obama administration as well as various corruption scandals involving individual "czars."
Obamacare: Including, but not limited to, the criteria used by the Obama administration to provide "waivers" to companies and unions exempting them from provisions of Obamacare; the Obama administration's decision to evaluate medical treatments based solely on cost; and the regulation and funding of Obamacare in general.
Pension Fraud: Including, but not limited to, the funding and management of public pension plans for municipal, state and unionized government workers.
Politicization at the Department of Justice: Including, but not limited to racially and politically motivated decision-making in federal civil and voting rights enforcement (such as the decision to largely abandon a voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers); Justice's decision to attack states that attempt to address illegal immigration through enhanced law enforcement measures; and the duties and responsibilities of lawyers inside Justice who previously represented terrorists.
White House Bribery: Including, but not limited to, an effort by the Obama administration to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to candidates Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for abandoning their campaigns.
"The American people spoke clearly on Election Day: No more backroom deals, no more influence peddling and no more corruption. This new Congress has an obligation to honor the intense desire by the American people to clean up corruption in Washington," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The federal government has grown by trillions of dollars, yet much of this historic new government activity (and control) has escaped effective congressional oversight. It is well past time for Congress to help pry loose information from the Obama administration, which is the most secretive in recent American history."
Friday, January 14, 2011
After Arizona Shootings, Background Checks Examined: Congress Refuses To Fund All Changes Made After Virginia Tech
/PRNewswire/ -- The following was released today by Mayors Against Illegal Guns:
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had a history of drug arrests, drug abuse and mental health issues. He was nonetheless able to pass a federal background check and buy the Glock pistol and high-capacity magazines he used to kill six people and seriously injure 13 others. Why? Because the federal background check system has critical gaps and is chronically underfunded - even though Congress and President George W. Bush reformed the program after the Virginia Tech massacre.
The shootings in Arizona supply the latest example of the system's serious flaws. Under federal law, drug abusers and addicts are prohibited from buying guns. Loughner was arrested on drug charges in 2007 and rejected from enlistment from the U.S. Army in 2008 after admitting to habitual drug use. Less than a year later, he passed a background check and bought a shotgun. If the system had worked and records were available to demonstrate Loughner's drug offense and abuse, he would have failed that background check.
This is not the first time the failure to obtain and maintain relevant records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) allowed a dangerous person to slip through cracks in the law. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before taking his own life. Cho was found to be a danger to himself by a special justice of the Montgomery County General District Court on December 14, 2005. Therefore, under federal law, Cho could not purchase any firearm. But the records of his mental health problem weren't in the NICS system because the general practice at the time was to only submit involuntary inpatient mental health orders, even though outpatient orders are also disqualifying under federal law.
In the wake of Virginia Tech, there was a national consensus to require better reporting of mental health records to the NICS system, and Congress responded. Less than two months after the shootings, the House unanimously passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. The Senate passed an amended bill, again unanimously, later that year. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on January 8, 2008.
The number of mental health NICS records has increased significantly under the new law, but there is much more to be done:
* There were 298,571 mental health records at the end of 2006.
* There were 1,107,758 mental health records at the end of 2010.
* The best available estimates indicate that there are more than 1,000,000 mental health records still missing, along with millions of other records on various types of prohibited purchasers.
Some states have made dramatic progress:
* According to the most recent state-specific data available – as of March 31, 2010 – three states have submitted more than 100,000 records:
o California: 256,106, an increase from 21 records at the end of 2006.
o New York: 154,962, an increase from 1 record at the end of 2006.
o Virginia: 139,185, an increase from 78,478 records at the end of 2006.
* Arizona has also made some progress:
o Arizona has submitted 5,036 records, up from zero at the end of 2006.
Still, many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding. Federal appropriators have granted only 5.3% of the authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011:
*Continuing Resolution funded NICS Improvement Act program at FY10 level. FY11 appropriations legislation has not been enacted.
In part as a result of chronic underfunding, ten states still have no people flagged as mentally ill in NICS: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
Eighteen more states and the District of Columbia still have fewer than 100 people listed as mentally ill in NICS: Iowa, Utah, Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Illinois, South Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, and South Dakota.
Millions of records are still missing. As of December 31, 2011, only 2,092 people are listed as drug abusers or addicts in NICS.
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had a history of drug arrests, drug abuse and mental health issues. He was nonetheless able to pass a federal background check and buy the Glock pistol and high-capacity magazines he used to kill six people and seriously injure 13 others. Why? Because the federal background check system has critical gaps and is chronically underfunded - even though Congress and President George W. Bush reformed the program after the Virginia Tech massacre.
The shootings in Arizona supply the latest example of the system's serious flaws. Under federal law, drug abusers and addicts are prohibited from buying guns. Loughner was arrested on drug charges in 2007 and rejected from enlistment from the U.S. Army in 2008 after admitting to habitual drug use. Less than a year later, he passed a background check and bought a shotgun. If the system had worked and records were available to demonstrate Loughner's drug offense and abuse, he would have failed that background check.
This is not the first time the failure to obtain and maintain relevant records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) allowed a dangerous person to slip through cracks in the law. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before taking his own life. Cho was found to be a danger to himself by a special justice of the Montgomery County General District Court on December 14, 2005. Therefore, under federal law, Cho could not purchase any firearm. But the records of his mental health problem weren't in the NICS system because the general practice at the time was to only submit involuntary inpatient mental health orders, even though outpatient orders are also disqualifying under federal law.
In the wake of Virginia Tech, there was a national consensus to require better reporting of mental health records to the NICS system, and Congress responded. Less than two months after the shootings, the House unanimously passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. The Senate passed an amended bill, again unanimously, later that year. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on January 8, 2008.
The number of mental health NICS records has increased significantly under the new law, but there is much more to be done:
* There were 298,571 mental health records at the end of 2006.
* There were 1,107,758 mental health records at the end of 2010.
* The best available estimates indicate that there are more than 1,000,000 mental health records still missing, along with millions of other records on various types of prohibited purchasers.
Some states have made dramatic progress:
* According to the most recent state-specific data available – as of March 31, 2010 – three states have submitted more than 100,000 records:
o California: 256,106, an increase from 21 records at the end of 2006.
o New York: 154,962, an increase from 1 record at the end of 2006.
o Virginia: 139,185, an increase from 78,478 records at the end of 2006.
* Arizona has also made some progress:
o Arizona has submitted 5,036 records, up from zero at the end of 2006.
Still, many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding. Federal appropriators have granted only 5.3% of the authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011:
Fiscal Year | Authorized Amount | Actual Appropriations | |
| FY2009 | $187.5 million | $10 million (5.3%) | |
| FY2010 | $375 million | $20 million (5.3%) | |
| FY2011 | $375 million | $20 million* (5.3%) |
*Continuing Resolution funded NICS Improvement Act program at FY10 level. FY11 appropriations legislation has not been enacted.
In part as a result of chronic underfunding, ten states still have no people flagged as mentally ill in NICS: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
Eighteen more states and the District of Columbia still have fewer than 100 people listed as mentally ill in NICS: Iowa, Utah, Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Illinois, South Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, and South Dakota.
Millions of records are still missing. As of December 31, 2011, only 2,092 people are listed as drug abusers or addicts in NICS.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Pass the BBA Releases National Survey Results: Clear Majority of Voters Want a BBA
/PRNewswire/ -- Pass the BBA today released the results of a survey they commissioned through Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) on voter attitudes towards a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The newly-formed Pass the BBA wishes to establish a baseline of national voter sentiment before they begin a targeted grassroots campaign to educate voters about their respective representative's position on the BBA over the next several months.
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
Thursday, November 11, 2010
New Congress Should Remove Restrictions on Flexible Spending Accounts to Help Consumers
/PRNewswire/ -- Save Flexible Spending Plans today called on the new leaders in Congress to follow through on their campaign promises to fix problems with the health care reform law, including restrictions on employer-provided flexible spending accounts (FSAs).
The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act includes several restrictions on FSAs, which were incorporated to pay for a portion of the health reform bill. First, starting on January 1, 2011, participants will need a doctor’s prescription in order to use their FSAs to pay for over-the-counter (OTC) medications, such as allergy medicine and cough syrup. Second, beginning on January 1, 2013, contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500 per year.
“It was never a good idea to fund health reform on the backs of hard-working Americans who use flexible spending accounts to manage and contain health costs,” said Joe Jackson, chairman of Save Flexible Spending Plans and CEO of WageWorks, Inc., a benefits provider based in San Mateo, CA. “To improve and fix the health reform law, Congress should quickly repeal the requirement starting January 1, 2011 that a doctor’s prescription is needed for consumers to use their flex accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications, including Claritin, Zyrtec and Tylenol. This provision will not only drive up health care costs, but it is an utter waste of consumers’ and physicians’ limited time.”
Jackson recommends Congress preserve the usefulness of FSAs by taking the following actions:
Repeal the OTC Prescription Requirement
Employee benefits providers and retailers expect that the new OTC medication prescription requirement will blindside consumers and create an administrative nightmare. The new rule will also increase costs to the health care system since additional office visits will be required for patients seeking prescriptions to use their spending accounts for OTC medications.
If Congress can’t find a way to remove the restriction altogether, then it should at least follow the recommendation of leading industry groups, including the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, who have requested a delay in implementation of the provision in order to give providers and retailers an opportunity to educate consumers and develop applicable compliance procedures.
Remove the “Use it or Lose it” Provision
Today, FSA participants are required to spend their entire annual election before the end of the calendar year (or, in some cases, an extension deadline), or those funds are forfeited and returned to their employers. This “use it or lose it” rule often discourages individuals from utilizing FSAs to save on their health care expenses for fear that they will lose any remaining balance. Additionally, this forfeiture rule is no longer necessary now that an FSA contribution cap is set to go into effect on January 1, 2013.
Rather than forcing consumers to forfeit or spend unused money at the end of a plan year, Congress should revise the rule to allow participants each year to roll over up to $500 or cash-out unused FSA funds. With participants paying taxes on those funds or rolling over dollars into the next year, either solution would generate additional revenue for the federal government.
Increase the Contribution Cap
The future cap on FSA contributions will force approximately seven million hard-working Americans who use their FSAs to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses that exceed the $2,500 limit to pay higher taxes and health care costs. Sadly, Americans with the highest out-of-pocket health care costs – those with chronic conditions or children with special needs – will be hit the hardest by this restriction. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, individuals and families with chronic illnesses incur annual out-of-pocket expenses that average $4,398 per year, which significantly exceeds the proposed $2,500 cap.
A more appropriate response is for Congress to set a cap at $5,000.
“FSAs are a lifeline for working Americans, often making the difference between staying afloat and going into debt over health care needs, and sometimes between getting necessary treatment and avoiding it altogether because of the cost. They enable participants to play an active role in managing their health care and should be preserved,” added Jackson.
About Save Flexible Spending Plans
Save Flexible Spending Plans is a national grassroots advocacy organization that protects against the restricted use of flexible spending accounts. The campaign is sponsored by the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), www.ecfc.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to the maintenance and expansion of private employee benefit programs on a tax-advantaged basis. To learn more, take action and read the personal stories of FSA participants, please visit www.savemyflexplan.org.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act includes several restrictions on FSAs, which were incorporated to pay for a portion of the health reform bill. First, starting on January 1, 2011, participants will need a doctor’s prescription in order to use their FSAs to pay for over-the-counter (OTC) medications, such as allergy medicine and cough syrup. Second, beginning on January 1, 2013, contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500 per year.
“It was never a good idea to fund health reform on the backs of hard-working Americans who use flexible spending accounts to manage and contain health costs,” said Joe Jackson, chairman of Save Flexible Spending Plans and CEO of WageWorks, Inc., a benefits provider based in San Mateo, CA. “To improve and fix the health reform law, Congress should quickly repeal the requirement starting January 1, 2011 that a doctor’s prescription is needed for consumers to use their flex accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications, including Claritin, Zyrtec and Tylenol. This provision will not only drive up health care costs, but it is an utter waste of consumers’ and physicians’ limited time.”
Jackson recommends Congress preserve the usefulness of FSAs by taking the following actions:
Repeal the OTC Prescription Requirement
Employee benefits providers and retailers expect that the new OTC medication prescription requirement will blindside consumers and create an administrative nightmare. The new rule will also increase costs to the health care system since additional office visits will be required for patients seeking prescriptions to use their spending accounts for OTC medications.
If Congress can’t find a way to remove the restriction altogether, then it should at least follow the recommendation of leading industry groups, including the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, who have requested a delay in implementation of the provision in order to give providers and retailers an opportunity to educate consumers and develop applicable compliance procedures.
Remove the “Use it or Lose it” Provision
Today, FSA participants are required to spend their entire annual election before the end of the calendar year (or, in some cases, an extension deadline), or those funds are forfeited and returned to their employers. This “use it or lose it” rule often discourages individuals from utilizing FSAs to save on their health care expenses for fear that they will lose any remaining balance. Additionally, this forfeiture rule is no longer necessary now that an FSA contribution cap is set to go into effect on January 1, 2013.
Rather than forcing consumers to forfeit or spend unused money at the end of a plan year, Congress should revise the rule to allow participants each year to roll over up to $500 or cash-out unused FSA funds. With participants paying taxes on those funds or rolling over dollars into the next year, either solution would generate additional revenue for the federal government.
Increase the Contribution Cap
The future cap on FSA contributions will force approximately seven million hard-working Americans who use their FSAs to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses that exceed the $2,500 limit to pay higher taxes and health care costs. Sadly, Americans with the highest out-of-pocket health care costs – those with chronic conditions or children with special needs – will be hit the hardest by this restriction. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, individuals and families with chronic illnesses incur annual out-of-pocket expenses that average $4,398 per year, which significantly exceeds the proposed $2,500 cap.
A more appropriate response is for Congress to set a cap at $5,000.
“FSAs are a lifeline for working Americans, often making the difference between staying afloat and going into debt over health care needs, and sometimes between getting necessary treatment and avoiding it altogether because of the cost. They enable participants to play an active role in managing their health care and should be preserved,” added Jackson.
About Save Flexible Spending Plans
Save Flexible Spending Plans is a national grassroots advocacy organization that protects against the restricted use of flexible spending accounts. The campaign is sponsored by the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), www.ecfc.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to the maintenance and expansion of private employee benefit programs on a tax-advantaged basis. To learn more, take action and read the personal stories of FSA participants, please visit www.savemyflexplan.org.
Monday, November 8, 2010
What's Next? An Issue that Unites Americans: Preservation of Parental Rights
/PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Michael P. Farris, J.D., President of ParentalRights.org:
In the aftermath of this past election, it is appropriate to ask the question: What next? What will some of the legislative priorities be for the newly constituted House and Senate?
An issue that motivated many activists in last week's elections, while going largely uncovered by the national media, is the protection of the right of parents to make decisions concerning their children. This promises to be on the short list of action items for a new House controlled by Republicans.
During the last election cycle, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and other Democratic leaders promised that they would seek and obtain ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Senator Jim DeMint (SC) introduced a resolution, S.Res.519, which opposes the ratification of the UN children's treaty that threatens the constitutional rights of parents. With the leadership of Senator DeMint and the substantial grassroots efforts of Parentalrights.org and 140+ affiliated family organizations, the Senate resolution has 31 formal sponsors. Written commitments from two additional senators bring the number to 33 Senators who stand against the use of international law to govern American parents. This is just one Senator away from the number needed to block ratification of this treaty.
A recent Zogby poll demonstrates that Americans oppose the Convention by 78.3% to 6.4%--a ratio of approximately 12 to 1.
On the flipside, 93% of Americans endorse the Supreme Court's traditional rule protecting parental rights as a fundamental freedom. And even with no explanation of the need for an amendment, 63% of the American public supports a constitutional amendment to protect these rights.
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment currently has 142 co-sponsors in the House, including 140 Republicans and two Democrats. In addition, dozens of candidates for the 112th Congress signed a pledge to cosponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. With many of these winning on November 2, ParentalRights.org already anticipates 156 cosponsors on the measure in January.
In the aftermath of this past election, it is appropriate to ask the question: What next? What will some of the legislative priorities be for the newly constituted House and Senate?
An issue that motivated many activists in last week's elections, while going largely uncovered by the national media, is the protection of the right of parents to make decisions concerning their children. This promises to be on the short list of action items for a new House controlled by Republicans.
During the last election cycle, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and other Democratic leaders promised that they would seek and obtain ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Senator Jim DeMint (SC) introduced a resolution, S.Res.519, which opposes the ratification of the UN children's treaty that threatens the constitutional rights of parents. With the leadership of Senator DeMint and the substantial grassroots efforts of Parentalrights.org and 140+ affiliated family organizations, the Senate resolution has 31 formal sponsors. Written commitments from two additional senators bring the number to 33 Senators who stand against the use of international law to govern American parents. This is just one Senator away from the number needed to block ratification of this treaty.
A recent Zogby poll demonstrates that Americans oppose the Convention by 78.3% to 6.4%--a ratio of approximately 12 to 1.
On the flipside, 93% of Americans endorse the Supreme Court's traditional rule protecting parental rights as a fundamental freedom. And even with no explanation of the need for an amendment, 63% of the American public supports a constitutional amendment to protect these rights.
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment currently has 142 co-sponsors in the House, including 140 Republicans and two Democrats. In addition, dozens of candidates for the 112th Congress signed a pledge to cosponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. With many of these winning on November 2, ParentalRights.org already anticipates 156 cosponsors on the measure in January.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Libertarians oppose abusive TSA strip-search machines
Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle commented today (November 5) on the Transportation Security Administration's use of strip-search machines at airports.
Hinkle said, "The TSA should end the strip-search machine program immediately.
"We've reached a point where our government has no qualms about humiliating us.
"Everyone who cares about civil liberties should be outraged that the Obama administration has shown no respect for travelers' privacy or their right to be free from unreasonable searches. The fact that I want to travel on an airplane does not make me a threat, and it does not allow anyone to conduct a warrantless search under my clothing. The Obama administration apparently agrees with the neoconservative philosophy that there are no limits on government power in the areas of security and terrorism.
"Terrorists win when they provoke our government into overreacting. Apparently they have manipulated our government into chipping away at our rights and privacy. We should not let them get away with it."
American Pilots Association president Dave Bates recently spoke out against the strip-search machines, expressing concern about the possibly harmful radiation they emit.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed the opening brief in its lawsuit against the program. EPIC says that the machines violate the federal Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC's president called the program "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective."
Hinkle continued, "We can ignore the government's assurances that images will not be stored. Regardless of policy, some security personnel will want to store the images, and they will find ways to do it. This is already reported to have happened in Florida, where U.S. Marshalls stored thousands of images from a courthouse scanner.
"Many airlines are probably relieved to have the federal government assume responsibility for security. But it's the airlines who ought to be responsible, and they should bear the liability for what happens on their flights. Rather than have a one-size-fits-all approach imposed by the government, passengers and airlines should be free to work together to determine what methods and levels of security fit their needs best.
"We encourage Americans to call their newly-elected members of Congress and tell them that they don't want this expensive, worthless, intrusive, unconstitutional program."
Hinkle said, "The TSA should end the strip-search machine program immediately.
"We've reached a point where our government has no qualms about humiliating us.
"Everyone who cares about civil liberties should be outraged that the Obama administration has shown no respect for travelers' privacy or their right to be free from unreasonable searches. The fact that I want to travel on an airplane does not make me a threat, and it does not allow anyone to conduct a warrantless search under my clothing. The Obama administration apparently agrees with the neoconservative philosophy that there are no limits on government power in the areas of security and terrorism.
"Terrorists win when they provoke our government into overreacting. Apparently they have manipulated our government into chipping away at our rights and privacy. We should not let them get away with it."
American Pilots Association president Dave Bates recently spoke out against the strip-search machines, expressing concern about the possibly harmful radiation they emit.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed the opening brief in its lawsuit against the program. EPIC says that the machines violate the federal Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC's president called the program "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective."
Hinkle continued, "We can ignore the government's assurances that images will not be stored. Regardless of policy, some security personnel will want to store the images, and they will find ways to do it. This is already reported to have happened in Florida, where U.S. Marshalls stored thousands of images from a courthouse scanner.
"Many airlines are probably relieved to have the federal government assume responsibility for security. But it's the airlines who ought to be responsible, and they should bear the liability for what happens on their flights. Rather than have a one-size-fits-all approach imposed by the government, passengers and airlines should be free to work together to determine what methods and levels of security fit their needs best.
"We encourage Americans to call their newly-elected members of Congress and tell them that they don't want this expensive, worthless, intrusive, unconstitutional program."
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Stop Bonuses For Dead Senators and Repeal the Death Tax!
/PRNewswir/ -- Just as Congress was adjourning to campaign for reelection, the U.S. Senate voted to pay Senator Byrd's family a $193,400 Death Bonus.
"This was a blatant display of Washington cronyism at its worst," said Dr. Lawrence A. Hunter, President of the Alliance for Retirement Prosperity. "I would applaud a charitable act from our elitists in the Senate, but not one Senator took a thin dime out of his/her pocket. They took it out of ours!"
The Alliance for Retirement Prosperity is calling on all outraged citizens to sign a petition to protest this outrage and to call for the repeal of the Federal Estate Tax, commonly known as the Death Tax. The petition is available at http://wethealliance.com/alliance/petition-letter.
"When the Death Tax hurts small businesses, kills jobs and destroys family farms, it punishes precisely the kind of behavior society should want to reward: hard work, good sense, savings; it rewards behavior that should be discouraged: extravagance, overconsumption and leisure.
"The easiest way to avoid all death taxes is to spend your money before you go. But work hard, reinvest your earnings and leave your life's savings to your loved ones and the IRS becomes one of your heirs. Death should not be a taxable event.
"Americans work tirelessly their entire lives to provide for their families to build up a nest egg for their families for when they pass on. However, when Senators die their family receives a death bonus on top of all the other benefits government employees receive. If the Senate feels so strongly about paying the family a death bonus, then perhaps they should pool their own money and pay it out of their pocket instead of burdening the taxpayer."
"This was a blatant display of Washington cronyism at its worst," said Dr. Lawrence A. Hunter, President of the Alliance for Retirement Prosperity. "I would applaud a charitable act from our elitists in the Senate, but not one Senator took a thin dime out of his/her pocket. They took it out of ours!"
The Alliance for Retirement Prosperity is calling on all outraged citizens to sign a petition to protest this outrage and to call for the repeal of the Federal Estate Tax, commonly known as the Death Tax. The petition is available at http://wethealliance.com/alliance/petition-letter.
"When the Death Tax hurts small businesses, kills jobs and destroys family farms, it punishes precisely the kind of behavior society should want to reward: hard work, good sense, savings; it rewards behavior that should be discouraged: extravagance, overconsumption and leisure.
"The easiest way to avoid all death taxes is to spend your money before you go. But work hard, reinvest your earnings and leave your life's savings to your loved ones and the IRS becomes one of your heirs. Death should not be a taxable event.
"Americans work tirelessly their entire lives to provide for their families to build up a nest egg for their families for when they pass on. However, when Senators die their family receives a death bonus on top of all the other benefits government employees receive. If the Senate feels so strongly about paying the family a death bonus, then perhaps they should pool their own money and pay it out of their pocket instead of burdening the taxpayer."
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Voters Overwhelmingly Support Super-Majority Requirement for New Entitlement Programs
/PRNewswire/ -- PreserveOurFuture.org today released polling data that shows Americans overwhelmingly want to make it harder for Congress to create new entitlement programs. Seventy percent support requiring a two-thirds super-majority vote in Congress to create new entitlement programs. And nearly sixty percent believe Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlement programs.
David Manns, founder of PreserveOurFuture.org, said "The American people understand the fiscal calamity our nation is heading towards, and desperately want to make it harder for Congress to saddle us with ever more costly programs. It is stunning that a majority of Americans are already willing to amend the Constitution to make it harder to create new entitlements, even before our nationwide campaign kicks in. America wants action, and office holders who fail to deliver do so at their own peril."
The survey also found that 67 percent of Independents and 62 percent of Democrats favor requiring a two-thirds vote to create new entitlement programs. In addition, 75 percent of African American voters support requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlements, followed by 71 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of white voters. This broad support spanning political parties and different demographic groups demonstrates the widespread concern that Americans have about the reckless spending behavior of elected officials who are out of touch with concerns of their constituents.
PreserveOurFuture.org is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group based in Russellville, Arkansas, and funded by individuals across the political spectrum. In launching the new non-profit, Manns said, "PreserveOurFuture.org has one simple goal – to make it more difficult to create permanent entitlement programs that cost trillions of dollars we don't have and can't afford. In short, enacting super programs should require a super-majority."
The nationwide poll was conducted by the Tarrance Group from September 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5% and the sample size was 800 likely voters.
David Manns, founder of PreserveOurFuture.org, said "The American people understand the fiscal calamity our nation is heading towards, and desperately want to make it harder for Congress to saddle us with ever more costly programs. It is stunning that a majority of Americans are already willing to amend the Constitution to make it harder to create new entitlements, even before our nationwide campaign kicks in. America wants action, and office holders who fail to deliver do so at their own peril."
The survey also found that 67 percent of Independents and 62 percent of Democrats favor requiring a two-thirds vote to create new entitlement programs. In addition, 75 percent of African American voters support requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlements, followed by 71 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of white voters. This broad support spanning political parties and different demographic groups demonstrates the widespread concern that Americans have about the reckless spending behavior of elected officials who are out of touch with concerns of their constituents.
PreserveOurFuture.org is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group based in Russellville, Arkansas, and funded by individuals across the political spectrum. In launching the new non-profit, Manns said, "PreserveOurFuture.org has one simple goal – to make it more difficult to create permanent entitlement programs that cost trillions of dollars we don't have and can't afford. In short, enacting super programs should require a super-majority."
The nationwide poll was conducted by the Tarrance Group from September 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5% and the sample size was 800 likely voters.
Friday, September 3, 2010
50 Worst Deserters of Jobless Americans
/PRNewswire-/ -- During the last two years of a virtual jobs depression, these 50 led Congress in allowing the addition of another 75,000 permanent working-age immigrants every MONTH and in allowing about 7 million illegal foreign workers to keep their jobs in construction, service, manufacturing and transportation. Recent government data show that 22 million U.S. workers who want a job can't find one. But these 50 Members of Congress deserted those Americans in favor of increasing the number of foreign workers competing with them in the hiring line.
The non-partisan NumbersUSA rates every member on every committee and floor vote and every bill co-sponsorship that would either increase or reduce the foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country. All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed on www.NumbersUSA.com. Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.
All 50 "Deserters" on this list:
-- received grades of F-minus and 0%, failing to take a single action to
reduce competition for jobless Americans.
-- are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
-- are in the Senate or in the House where they are leaders with special
opportunity to influence policy toward jobless Americans because they
either are congressional chairmen, leaders of their Party or on the
Judiciary Committee with direct jurisdiction over immigration.
WORST DESERTERS IN THE SENATE
-----------------------------
Bennet, Michael (CO)
Feingold, Russell (WI)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY)
Inouye, Daniel (HI)
Leahy, Patrick (VT)
Mikulski, Barbara (MD)
Reid, Harry (NV)
WORST DESERTERS IN THE HOUSE
----------------------------
Ackerman, Gary (NY 05th)
Baldwin, Tammy (WI - 02nd)
Becerra, Xavier (CA - 31st)
Berman, Howard (CA - 28th)
Chu, Judy (CA - 32nd)
Clarke, Yvette (NY - 11th)
Clyburn, James (SC - 06th)
Conyers, John (MI - 14th)
Cummings, Elijah (MD - 07th)
Engel, Eliot (NY - 17th)
Grijalva, Raul (AZ - 07th)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL - 04th)
Hastings, Alcee (FL - 23rd)
Hoyer, Steny (MD - 05th)
Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX - 18th)
Johnson, Hank (GA - 04th)
Kucinich, Dennis (OH - 10th)
Lewis, John (GA - 05th)
Lofgren, Zoe (CA - 16th)
Markey, Edward (MA - 07th)
McDermott, Jim (WA 07th)
Nadler, Jerrold (NY - 08th)
Napolitano, Grace (CA - 38th)
Olver, John (MA - 01st)
Quigley, Mike (IL - 05th)
Pelosi, Nancy (CA - 8th)
Rahall, Nick (WV - 03rd)
Rangel, Charles (NY - 15th)
Rush, Bobby (IL - 01st)
Sanchez, Linda (CA - 39th)
Schakowsky, Janice (IL - 09th)
Scott, Robert (VA - 03rd)
Serrano, Jose (NY - 16th)
Slaughter, Louise (NY - 28th)
Stark, Pete (CA - 13th)
Thompson, Bennie (MS - 02nd)
Towns, Edolphus (NY - 10th)
Velazquez, Nidia (NY - 12th)
Tsongas, Niki (MA - 05th)
Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie (FL - 20th)
Watt, Melvin (NC - 12th)
Waxman, Henry (CA - 30th)
Woolsey, Lynn (CA - 06th)
NumbersUSA also announced the "50 Best Defenders of Jobless Americans."
NumbersUSA is a non-profit and non-partisan organization with more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable members of the national community.
The non-partisan NumbersUSA rates every member on every committee and floor vote and every bill co-sponsorship that would either increase or reduce the foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country. All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed on www.NumbersUSA.com. Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.
All 50 "Deserters" on this list:
-- received grades of F-minus and 0%, failing to take a single action to
reduce competition for jobless Americans.
-- are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
-- are in the Senate or in the House where they are leaders with special
opportunity to influence policy toward jobless Americans because they
either are congressional chairmen, leaders of their Party or on the
Judiciary Committee with direct jurisdiction over immigration.
WORST DESERTERS IN THE SENATE
-----------------------------
Bennet, Michael (CO)
Feingold, Russell (WI)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY)
Inouye, Daniel (HI)
Leahy, Patrick (VT)
Mikulski, Barbara (MD)
Reid, Harry (NV)
WORST DESERTERS IN THE HOUSE
----------------------------
Ackerman, Gary (NY 05th)
Baldwin, Tammy (WI - 02nd)
Becerra, Xavier (CA - 31st)
Berman, Howard (CA - 28th)
Chu, Judy (CA - 32nd)
Clarke, Yvette (NY - 11th)
Clyburn, James (SC - 06th)
Conyers, John (MI - 14th)
Cummings, Elijah (MD - 07th)
Engel, Eliot (NY - 17th)
Grijalva, Raul (AZ - 07th)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL - 04th)
Hastings, Alcee (FL - 23rd)
Hoyer, Steny (MD - 05th)
Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX - 18th)
Johnson, Hank (GA - 04th)
Kucinich, Dennis (OH - 10th)
Lewis, John (GA - 05th)
Lofgren, Zoe (CA - 16th)
Markey, Edward (MA - 07th)
McDermott, Jim (WA 07th)
Nadler, Jerrold (NY - 08th)
Napolitano, Grace (CA - 38th)
Olver, John (MA - 01st)
Quigley, Mike (IL - 05th)
Pelosi, Nancy (CA - 8th)
Rahall, Nick (WV - 03rd)
Rangel, Charles (NY - 15th)
Rush, Bobby (IL - 01st)
Sanchez, Linda (CA - 39th)
Schakowsky, Janice (IL - 09th)
Scott, Robert (VA - 03rd)
Serrano, Jose (NY - 16th)
Slaughter, Louise (NY - 28th)
Stark, Pete (CA - 13th)
Thompson, Bennie (MS - 02nd)
Towns, Edolphus (NY - 10th)
Velazquez, Nidia (NY - 12th)
Tsongas, Niki (MA - 05th)
Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie (FL - 20th)
Watt, Melvin (NC - 12th)
Waxman, Henry (CA - 30th)
Woolsey, Lynn (CA - 06th)
NumbersUSA also announced the "50 Best Defenders of Jobless Americans."
NumbersUSA is a non-profit and non-partisan organization with more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable members of the national community.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Religious Leaders to Congress: 'Don't Tamper with our Rights'
/PRNewswire/ -- Leaders from more than 100 religious organizations are urging Congress against tampering with the freedom of religion, contending that pending legislation would deny religious charities receiving federal grants their fundamental right to hire people who share their faith.
In a letter delivered today to every member of the House and Senate, the leaders of World Vision, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (UOJCA), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and others argue that, "such actions would be catastrophic to our efforts to serve those in need, and to all who value the protection for religious liberty."
Richard Stearns, the president and CEO of World Vision, U.S., says the letter and other efforts are targeting not just pending legislation, but also calls for Congress to ban religious hiring exemptions in an expected continuing budget resolution later this fall.
"Too much is at stake - especially among the tens of millions who receive help, care and support from faith-based charities," says Stearns. "Our nation needs religious charities. For decades, we have relied on and benefited from religious charities receiving federal grants. There is no good reason - nor a compelling legal justification - to jeopardize those organizations and, more importantly, the people they serve."
Interestingly, most of those signing the letter represent organizations and educational institutions that do not accept federal grants.
Contrary to a common misconception, the right of religious organizations to compete for federal grants while retaining the opportunity to hire people of like-minded faith is not a policy holdover from the administration of George W. Bush. Rather, it rests on legislation passed under two Democratic administrations:
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that allows religious employers to prefer staff who share their religious conviction and mission.
President Bill Clinton, in 1993 signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), based on which, the Justice Department recently concluded faith-based organizations are entitled to continue their religious hiring policy while also receiving federal grants. That legislation 17 years ago was championed by then-Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), as well as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and then Representative Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.).
The religious leaders also included a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. from constitutional scholar Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan law school. Laycock explains why RFRA protects the religious hiring rights of some faith-based grantees and urges Holder to enforce such rights.
"Does government substantially burden the exercise of religion, within the meaning of RFRA, when it offers monetary grants on condition that a religious organization abandon one of its religious practices?" Laycock wrote. "Yes it does."
Moreover, in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the law guaranteeing this right does not violate the separation of church and state.
"The law is clear and has been for nearly 50 years," says Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy for the UOJCA and a signatory to the letter. "Faith is foundational to faith-based agencies. It is the motivation for our work, and it is what drives us to engage in service to others."
Faith-based organizations recognize that if they receive federal grants they cannot discriminate in selecting recipients of services funded by those grants. Moreover, they are prohibited from proselytizing. Anyone needing assistance must be served equally, regardless of their interest - or lack thereof - in religion or religious activities or messages, according to the law.
"The law has long protected the religious freedom of both the people who receive government-funded services, and the groups that provide the services - long before President Obama, and long before President Bush," said Anthony R. Picarello Jr., General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Stripping away the religious hiring rights of religious service providers violates the principle of religious freedom, and represents bad practice in the delivery of social services."
In a letter delivered today to every member of the House and Senate, the leaders of World Vision, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (UOJCA), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and others argue that, "such actions would be catastrophic to our efforts to serve those in need, and to all who value the protection for religious liberty."
Richard Stearns, the president and CEO of World Vision, U.S., says the letter and other efforts are targeting not just pending legislation, but also calls for Congress to ban religious hiring exemptions in an expected continuing budget resolution later this fall.
"Too much is at stake - especially among the tens of millions who receive help, care and support from faith-based charities," says Stearns. "Our nation needs religious charities. For decades, we have relied on and benefited from religious charities receiving federal grants. There is no good reason - nor a compelling legal justification - to jeopardize those organizations and, more importantly, the people they serve."
Interestingly, most of those signing the letter represent organizations and educational institutions that do not accept federal grants.
Contrary to a common misconception, the right of religious organizations to compete for federal grants while retaining the opportunity to hire people of like-minded faith is not a policy holdover from the administration of George W. Bush. Rather, it rests on legislation passed under two Democratic administrations:
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that allows religious employers to prefer staff who share their religious conviction and mission.
President Bill Clinton, in 1993 signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), based on which, the Justice Department recently concluded faith-based organizations are entitled to continue their religious hiring policy while also receiving federal grants. That legislation 17 years ago was championed by then-Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), as well as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and then Representative Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.).
The religious leaders also included a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. from constitutional scholar Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan law school. Laycock explains why RFRA protects the religious hiring rights of some faith-based grantees and urges Holder to enforce such rights.
"Does government substantially burden the exercise of religion, within the meaning of RFRA, when it offers monetary grants on condition that a religious organization abandon one of its religious practices?" Laycock wrote. "Yes it does."
Moreover, in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the law guaranteeing this right does not violate the separation of church and state.
"The law is clear and has been for nearly 50 years," says Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy for the UOJCA and a signatory to the letter. "Faith is foundational to faith-based agencies. It is the motivation for our work, and it is what drives us to engage in service to others."
Faith-based organizations recognize that if they receive federal grants they cannot discriminate in selecting recipients of services funded by those grants. Moreover, they are prohibited from proselytizing. Anyone needing assistance must be served equally, regardless of their interest - or lack thereof - in religion or religious activities or messages, according to the law.
"The law has long protected the religious freedom of both the people who receive government-funded services, and the groups that provide the services - long before President Obama, and long before President Bush," said Anthony R. Picarello Jr., General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Stripping away the religious hiring rights of religious service providers violates the principle of religious freedom, and represents bad practice in the delivery of social services."
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Don't Doubt Bernanke's Ability to Create Inflation
/PRNewswire/ The National Inflation Association today released the following inflation update to its http://inflation.us/ members:
With the Dow Jones now down 11% nominally from its high last month, NIA has been getting hundreds of emails and phone calls asking if there is any way we could be wrong about the threat of hyperinflation in the U.S. and if indeed deflation is the real problem we need to be worried about. The names Nouriel Roubini, Robert Prechter, and Harry Dent get mentioned to us a lot, with many NIA members asking why these so-called "experts" believe deflation is in our future.
Roubini, Prechter and Dent have been wrong about the overwhelming majority of their economic forecasts over the past decade. When it comes to their latest predictions about deflation, they will actually be right to some extent. We will see deflation in some assets like stocks and Real Estate, but only when priced in terms of real money - gold and silver. In terms of dollars, prices for pretty much all goods and services are guaranteed to rise dramatically over the next few years. Creating inflation is the only thing in the world Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke knows how to do and is good at.
During the past week, the mainstream media has shifted from saying we are experiencing an "economy recovery" to now saying we are at risk of a "double dip recession." Nothing fundamentally has changed in our economy. The fact is, the U.S. economy has been in a recession since mid-2000. All government reported positive GDP growth since mid-2000 has been due to nothing but inflation. Our economy should have experienced a depression in 2001 and an even greater one in 2008, but the depression has been temporarily avoided at the expense of an inevitable Hyperinflationary Great Depression down the road.
NIA believes it is impossible for the U.S. to experience price deflation when the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at 0% for the past 17 months. Sure, there will probably be a second wave of mortgage defaults that could cause another round of forced liquidations on Wall Street, but during any future period of forced liquidations, we doubt the U.S. dollar will still be looked at as the "safe haven" it was in 2008/2009. Gold and silver will soon be looked at as the only real safe havens because they are the only assets that provide protection from both a deteriorating economy and massive inflation. Precious metals will decouple from the Dow Jones and we will begin to see gold and silver rise at the same time as the stock market falls.
Bernanke was questioned yesterday following a speech at the Bank of Japan about whether a 4% inflation target would be better than the Fed's current inflation target of 2%. Bernanke responded that "it would be a very risky transition" if the Fed changed their inflation target, claiming that U.S. inflation expectations are currently "very stable" (NIA estimates the real rate of U.S. price inflation is already north of 5%).
Unfortunately, no policymaker in the world is smart enough to accurately control the rate of price inflation through the manipulation of interest rates, and certainly not Bernanke. It's mind-boggling to us how the mainstream media could believe anything Bernanke says about inflation after how wrong he has been about everything else. Maybe the press has already forgotten that it was Bernanke who in July of 2005 said, "it's a pretty unlikely possibility" that home prices will decline across the country, "house prices will slow, maybe stabilize but I don't think it's going to drive the economy too far from its full employment path." We are 100% sure that Bernanke will be proven wrong again when it comes to inflation.
The U.S. Dollar Index has rallied from 75 to 87 since December and is approaching its high from March of 2009 of 89. This has given Bernanke the cover to keep interest rates at a record low 0%, but NIA believes Bernanke is misreading these economic signals. When the U.S. Dollar Index reached its high last year of 89, gold was only $900 per ounce. Today, gold is approximately $1,200 per ounce. The fact that gold has held up so strong despite a rapidly rising U.S. Dollar Index, proves that our financial system is getting ready to overdose on excess liquidity. The U.S. Dollar Index has rallied only because it is heavily weighted against the Euro. The Euro is now overdue for a huge bounce, which we believe will send the U.S. dollar crashing while sending gold to new record highs.
It's not good for us to pay too much attention to short-term volatility in the financial markets. Short-term "noise" often causes investors to second guess what they know is true. In our new documentary 'Meltup' (which has now surpassed 441,000 views in 10 days) we said, "If stocks were to see a nominal decline one last time, we will likely see Bernanke shoot up his largest ever dose of quantitative easing, which could turn the current Meltup into hyperinflation."
We are seeing signs of this coming true already. Washington is now calling for another stimulus. Larry Summers, senior economic adviser to President Obama, has asked Congress to begin drafting a new stimulus bill in an attempt to prevent a "double dip recession." The proposed size of this new stimulus is so far only $200 billion, much smaller than the last $787 billion stimulus bill. However, we are sure Congress will increase the size of it, especially if stocks continue their nominal decline. The new stimulus bill will likely coincide with trillions of dollars in additional quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve.
With the Dow Jones now down 11% nominally from its high last month, NIA has been getting hundreds of emails and phone calls asking if there is any way we could be wrong about the threat of hyperinflation in the U.S. and if indeed deflation is the real problem we need to be worried about. The names Nouriel Roubini, Robert Prechter, and Harry Dent get mentioned to us a lot, with many NIA members asking why these so-called "experts" believe deflation is in our future.
Roubini, Prechter and Dent have been wrong about the overwhelming majority of their economic forecasts over the past decade. When it comes to their latest predictions about deflation, they will actually be right to some extent. We will see deflation in some assets like stocks and Real Estate, but only when priced in terms of real money - gold and silver. In terms of dollars, prices for pretty much all goods and services are guaranteed to rise dramatically over the next few years. Creating inflation is the only thing in the world Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke knows how to do and is good at.
During the past week, the mainstream media has shifted from saying we are experiencing an "economy recovery" to now saying we are at risk of a "double dip recession." Nothing fundamentally has changed in our economy. The fact is, the U.S. economy has been in a recession since mid-2000. All government reported positive GDP growth since mid-2000 has been due to nothing but inflation. Our economy should have experienced a depression in 2001 and an even greater one in 2008, but the depression has been temporarily avoided at the expense of an inevitable Hyperinflationary Great Depression down the road.
NIA believes it is impossible for the U.S. to experience price deflation when the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at 0% for the past 17 months. Sure, there will probably be a second wave of mortgage defaults that could cause another round of forced liquidations on Wall Street, but during any future period of forced liquidations, we doubt the U.S. dollar will still be looked at as the "safe haven" it was in 2008/2009. Gold and silver will soon be looked at as the only real safe havens because they are the only assets that provide protection from both a deteriorating economy and massive inflation. Precious metals will decouple from the Dow Jones and we will begin to see gold and silver rise at the same time as the stock market falls.
Bernanke was questioned yesterday following a speech at the Bank of Japan about whether a 4% inflation target would be better than the Fed's current inflation target of 2%. Bernanke responded that "it would be a very risky transition" if the Fed changed their inflation target, claiming that U.S. inflation expectations are currently "very stable" (NIA estimates the real rate of U.S. price inflation is already north of 5%).
Unfortunately, no policymaker in the world is smart enough to accurately control the rate of price inflation through the manipulation of interest rates, and certainly not Bernanke. It's mind-boggling to us how the mainstream media could believe anything Bernanke says about inflation after how wrong he has been about everything else. Maybe the press has already forgotten that it was Bernanke who in July of 2005 said, "it's a pretty unlikely possibility" that home prices will decline across the country, "house prices will slow, maybe stabilize but I don't think it's going to drive the economy too far from its full employment path." We are 100% sure that Bernanke will be proven wrong again when it comes to inflation.
The U.S. Dollar Index has rallied from 75 to 87 since December and is approaching its high from March of 2009 of 89. This has given Bernanke the cover to keep interest rates at a record low 0%, but NIA believes Bernanke is misreading these economic signals. When the U.S. Dollar Index reached its high last year of 89, gold was only $900 per ounce. Today, gold is approximately $1,200 per ounce. The fact that gold has held up so strong despite a rapidly rising U.S. Dollar Index, proves that our financial system is getting ready to overdose on excess liquidity. The U.S. Dollar Index has rallied only because it is heavily weighted against the Euro. The Euro is now overdue for a huge bounce, which we believe will send the U.S. dollar crashing while sending gold to new record highs.
It's not good for us to pay too much attention to short-term volatility in the financial markets. Short-term "noise" often causes investors to second guess what they know is true. In our new documentary 'Meltup' (which has now surpassed 441,000 views in 10 days) we said, "If stocks were to see a nominal decline one last time, we will likely see Bernanke shoot up his largest ever dose of quantitative easing, which could turn the current Meltup into hyperinflation."
We are seeing signs of this coming true already. Washington is now calling for another stimulus. Larry Summers, senior economic adviser to President Obama, has asked Congress to begin drafting a new stimulus bill in an attempt to prevent a "double dip recession." The proposed size of this new stimulus is so far only $200 billion, much smaller than the last $787 billion stimulus bill. However, we are sure Congress will increase the size of it, especially if stocks continue their nominal decline. The new stimulus bill will likely coincide with trillions of dollars in additional quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
New Zogby Poll: Americans By 3 to 1 Margin Believe Military Leaders Instead of Congress Should Decide 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that the American people by a 3 to 1 overwhelming majority say that military leaders should make the decision on whether or not homosexuals should serve openly in the military.
The scientific survey by Zogby International asked the following question of likely voters: "As it pertains to homosexuals openly serving in the military, do you believe this decision is best made by military leaders or Congress?"
An overwhelming majority of voters (59%) chose military leaders as the most capable decision makers compared to (23%) who chose Congress. Almost one in five, (18%) were unsure.
"The American people by a three to one margin believe that uniformed military leaders should be a part of shaping this policy, it should not be done by politicians," noted FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
"This Administration and liberals in Congress are attempting to use the military to advance a radical agenda as payoff to their homosexual base of political support. Congress and the White House should be listening to our military commanders and exhausting every resource to understand the concerns of our troops - who will not only be forced to live under this new rule, but who can evaluate the issue through the lens of practicality," said Perkins.
"The study conducted by the Department of Defense should be the start of debate in Congress, not the useless afterthought that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Levin's actions will reduce it to," concluded Perkins.
Zogby International reports, "A majority in nearly every sub-group believes that military leaders should make the decision about homosexuals serving openly in the military. Exceptions include Democrats (37%), those under 30 (45%), single people (44%), and African Americans (44%) where a plurality believe military leaders should make the decision. One in five (21%) of those who are or has a family member who is a member of the Armed Forces thinks that Congress should make the decision, while 14% of this group is not sure."
The scientific survey by Zogby International asked the following question of likely voters: "As it pertains to homosexuals openly serving in the military, do you believe this decision is best made by military leaders or Congress?"
An overwhelming majority of voters (59%) chose military leaders as the most capable decision makers compared to (23%) who chose Congress. Almost one in five, (18%) were unsure.
"The American people by a three to one margin believe that uniformed military leaders should be a part of shaping this policy, it should not be done by politicians," noted FRC Action President Tony Perkins.
"This Administration and liberals in Congress are attempting to use the military to advance a radical agenda as payoff to their homosexual base of political support. Congress and the White House should be listening to our military commanders and exhausting every resource to understand the concerns of our troops - who will not only be forced to live under this new rule, but who can evaluate the issue through the lens of practicality," said Perkins.
"The study conducted by the Department of Defense should be the start of debate in Congress, not the useless afterthought that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Levin's actions will reduce it to," concluded Perkins.
Zogby International reports, "A majority in nearly every sub-group believes that military leaders should make the decision about homosexuals serving openly in the military. Exceptions include Democrats (37%), those under 30 (45%), single people (44%), and African Americans (44%) where a plurality believe military leaders should make the decision. One in five (21%) of those who are or has a family member who is a member of the Armed Forces thinks that Congress should make the decision, while 14% of this group is not sure."
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Congressional Pay Grows 15 Times Faster Than Social Security Checks
/PRNewswire/ -- Seniors who retired in 1990 with the average Social Security benefit have seen their annual payments increase by just $4,967 over the past 20 years. During the same time period, members of Congress have awarded themselves pay raises totaling $77,400 per year - a whopping 1,458 percent more than seniors.
The analysis was conducted by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors advocacy groups with 1.2 million supporters.
According to the Social Security Administration, a senior receiving the average Social Security benefit in 1990 received $554.50 per month. A TSCL analysis found that the same senior is receiving a monthly benefit of $968.40 today, due to the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) intended to help seniors keep up with inflation.
*Note: Members of the House of Representatives have had a greater salary increase than Senators since 1990 because their base pay in 1990 was slightly lower.
For the first time since the automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) was introduced in 1975, seniors are receiving no COLA this year. Lawmakers, however, receive an automatic pay raise each year without having to cast a vote for it; instead, they would have to vote to block their annual pay raise. Lawmakers continue to enjoy massive wealth - a 2008 study by the Center for Responsive Politics reported that fully 61 of 100 senators were millionaires.
"This is a perfect example of the two types of rules we've gotten too used to seeing - those that politicians make for themselves, and those they make for the rest of us," said Daniel O'Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League. "As lawmakers enjoy their six-figure incomes, they've too often turned a blind eye to the desperate plight of America's seniors, who are struggling harder than ever to make ends meet."
TSCL supports H.R. 4720, the "Taking Responsibility for Congressional Pay Act," introduced by Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. The bill currently has 27 co-sponsors.
The proposal would cut congressional pay by five percent next year, representing the first pay cut for lawmakers since the Great Depression. The $8,700-per-lawmaker cut would save taxpayers more than $4.6 million.
TSCL encourages its members to contact their lawmakers and request that they co-sponsor the bill.
"Although the majority of lawmakers are happy with the status quo, more than two dozen have already supported a congressional pay cut. We believe that these lawmakers - truly great role models who are willing to endure personal sacrifice during these difficult economic times - deserve our gratitude," said Shannon Benton, TSCL's executive director. "Therefore, we will post the names of all of this bill's supporters to our website, at www.SeniorsLeague.org."
With 1.2 million supporters, The Senior Citizens League (www.SeniorsLeague.org) is one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups. TSCL is a proud affiliate of The Retired Enlisted Association.
The analysis was conducted by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors advocacy groups with 1.2 million supporters.
According to the Social Security Administration, a senior receiving the average Social Security benefit in 1990 received $554.50 per month. A TSCL analysis found that the same senior is receiving a monthly benefit of $968.40 today, due to the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) intended to help seniors keep up with inflation.
ANNUAL PAY IN ANNUAL PAY IN % MORE THAN
1990 2010 INCREASE, SENIORS
1990 - 2010
(IN DOLLARS)
AVERAGE SENIOR $6,654 $11,621 $4,967 N/A
SOCIAL SECURITY
(RETIRED IN
1990)
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES $96,600 $174,000 $77,400 1,458%
SENATORS $98,400 $174,000 $75,600 1,422%*Note: Members of the House of Representatives have had a greater salary increase than Senators since 1990 because their base pay in 1990 was slightly lower.
For the first time since the automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) was introduced in 1975, seniors are receiving no COLA this year. Lawmakers, however, receive an automatic pay raise each year without having to cast a vote for it; instead, they would have to vote to block their annual pay raise. Lawmakers continue to enjoy massive wealth - a 2008 study by the Center for Responsive Politics reported that fully 61 of 100 senators were millionaires.
"This is a perfect example of the two types of rules we've gotten too used to seeing - those that politicians make for themselves, and those they make for the rest of us," said Daniel O'Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League. "As lawmakers enjoy their six-figure incomes, they've too often turned a blind eye to the desperate plight of America's seniors, who are struggling harder than ever to make ends meet."
TSCL supports H.R. 4720, the "Taking Responsibility for Congressional Pay Act," introduced by Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. The bill currently has 27 co-sponsors.
The proposal would cut congressional pay by five percent next year, representing the first pay cut for lawmakers since the Great Depression. The $8,700-per-lawmaker cut would save taxpayers more than $4.6 million.
TSCL encourages its members to contact their lawmakers and request that they co-sponsor the bill.
"Although the majority of lawmakers are happy with the status quo, more than two dozen have already supported a congressional pay cut. We believe that these lawmakers - truly great role models who are willing to endure personal sacrifice during these difficult economic times - deserve our gratitude," said Shannon Benton, TSCL's executive director. "Therefore, we will post the names of all of this bill's supporters to our website, at www.SeniorsLeague.org."
With 1.2 million supporters, The Senior Citizens League (www.SeniorsLeague.org) is one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups. TSCL is a proud affiliate of The Retired Enlisted Association.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Constitution Project Awards Dinner
/PRNewswire/ -- Thank you, Ginny [Sloan]. It's good to be with you, and it's a privilege to join you in celebrating the extraordinary contributions and achievements of tonight's honorees, George Kendall and Ambassador [Thomas] Pickering. Congratulations to you both.
I'm especially grateful for this opportunity to tell the Constitution Project's leadership and membership how much I appreciate your commitment to the cause of justice, to the promise of equal justice, and to our nation's most essential and enduring values.
On behalf of the Department of Justice, let me thank you, in particular, for your strong support of the Access to Justice Initiative that we launched last month. This new office -- led by Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe -- reflects an historic assurance that expanding access to legal services is, and will continue to be, a national priority. With the same dedication that you showed in calling for this initiative, I have no doubt that many of the attorneys and advocates gathered in this room will contribute to its success.
As we look toward this future, and toward the progress we seek to realize, I'd like to talk with you tonight about the unprecedented challenges that -- together -- we must overcome.
Just yesterday, I had the chance to discuss some of these challenges with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department has serious responsibilities -- none more serious than keeping the American people safe -- and our approach to these responsibilities understandably provokes robust debate, and even criticism. Now, as I look around this room, I realize that, just like yesterday, I'm speaking to some who have not always agreed with the entirety of our approach when it comes to protecting our national security. In fact, one of the things I've learned over the last year is that it simply is not possible, as Attorney General, to make everyone happy. But, despite this fact, I also know that everyone in this room shares a common goal: the goal of protecting America's safety, America's interests and America's values, by adhering to the rule of law. So tonight, let me tell you exactly where I stand when it comes to meeting this essential goal.
Let's start with one stark fact: We are a nation at war. In this war, we face an intelligent, nimble and determined enemy.
Let me assure you: I know the seriousness of the threat we face. I know that -- both in distant countries as well as within our own borders -- there are people plotting to kill Americans. I begin each day with a briefing on the latest, and most urgent, threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. And I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
Like every person sitting in this room, like the President and those who serve this Administration, and like every Member serving in our Congress, I am determined to win this war. I know we can, and I am certain we will. But victory and security will not come easily. And they won't come at all if we approach this work by adhering to a rigid ideology or narrow methodology.
But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws. This means that the government's powers are defined both by our tangible laws -- the Constitution, statutes, court precedents -- and also by the basic principle of the rule of law. Within this framework, I believe we must do everything within our legal power to protect the American people. Just as on a battlefield, every arm of the government must use every appropriate weapon available to win this war. I know that some of those weapons may be unpopular. But when it comes to protecting the American people, the charge that we are "coddling terrorists" is no more accurate than the equally vehement cry that we have "rubber stamped the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies." In fact, we would be derelict in our most basic duties if we did not rely on the full scope of our law enforcement, intelligence, military and diplomatic capabilities to keep the American people safe. This means we must use both statecraft and war craft, both our criminal justice system and our military authorities, both our civilian courts and our military commissions, to defeat our enemies. The best traditions of our country -- of a responsible, respectful government, of the rule of law, of the neutral administration of justice -- call for this.
The Administration's -- and the Justice Department's -- commitment to using every available tool to fight terrorism also reflects a simple fact about the war in which we are now engaged: we face a variety of threats, threats that require us to be both aggressive and innovative.
It is no exaggeration to describe our federal justice system, which was established by Article III of our Constitution, and our military commissions not just as tools, but as weapons against those who seek to do us harm. Both enable us to target and incapacitate terrorists. Both also allow us to achieve justice and ensure accountability for violent acts against us. When selecting between these two weapons, the choice should be based on a case-specific assessment of the threat at hand, the evidence in possession and a careful consideration of what will best allow us to achieve justice. That choice is not always easy to make or easy to publicly explain, especially because court rules and intelligence equities sometimes make it impossible to discuss in an open forum the reasoning for a particular decision. But I can tell you tonight about some of the differences between the two fora.
It says something, though, about the quality of the debate when the idea of using both the Article III justice system and military commissions has become deeply controversial. This Administration rejects the false choice critics would have us make, because if we were to exclusively follow only one path while blocking the use of the other, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to bring every terrorist to justice. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.
For example, the proposal by some respected leaders in Congress to ban completely the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity obscures some basic facts and allows campaign slogans to overtake legal reality. The reality is this: Since 9/11, more than 400 individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in civilian courts. Without civilian law enforcement and civilian courts, we would be denied the use of what has been our most effective weapon for disrupting, dismantling and defeating terror plots. It would hinder our ability to secure actionable intelligence, and to enlist international cooperation, in our fight against terrorism. It would deny us the means to punish the guilty and deter those who would commit crimes against us. And it would be a disservice to the history of our civilian justice system. There's no question that if such a plan advances, it would seriously harm our national security.
Just look at what our civilian courts have helped to achieve. Over the past year, I am proud to say that the Justice Department, working closely with our partners in the intelligence community, was extraordinarily successful in disrupting plots, obtaining intelligence and incapacitating terrorists. And our ability to use our criminal justice system -- including civilian courts -- was a key part of this success.
For example, we detected and disrupted a plot to detonate explosives in Manhattan's subways. Najibullah Zazi has already pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in this case, and we have also charged several of his associates with participating in the plot and related crimes.
We secured a guilty plea from David Headley for assisting in the deadly attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and for plotting another attack in Denmark. As part of his plea, Headley has already provided valuable intelligence to the government about terrorist activities abroad.
Through the hard work of our federal law enforcement officials, we have obtained the cooperation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was charged in civilian court with attempting to bomb an airliner as it landed in Detroit last Christmas. Although I obviously cannot discuss the intelligence he has provided, I can tell you that it has been not just valuable, but actionable.
We convicted Aafia Siddiqui of attempting to murder U.S. military and law enforcement agents in Afghanistan. Siddiqui is a Pakistani physicist who, when captured in Afghanistan, was found with explosives, as well as information about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and descriptions of U.S. landmarks. She later opened fire on U.S. personnel. The Justice Department under the Bush Administration indicted her in civilian court in 2008, and she was convicted two months ago in New York.
These are just a few of many successes that resulted from the combined efforts of experienced prosecutors, intelligence agents, and the President's national security team. Each has made America safer.
On the other hand, military commissions are also useful in the proper circumstances, and we need them, too. Those who denigrate these commissions must remember that, while federal courts can handle most terrorism prosecutions, in some cases, military commissions are not only appropriate, but also necessary to convict and neutralize terrorists. Last year, the Obama Administration spent a great deal of time and effort working with Congress to revise the commission rules to ensure that they are consistent with the rule of law. Congress has taken extraordinary steps to reform and improve these commissions since they were first introduced.
The truth is that the reformed commissions draw from the same Constitutional protections that underlie our civilian courts -- the key difference being that, in commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and the difficulties of conducting investigations in a war zone. I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I've referred six cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. And I expect to refer additional cases.
There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in select cases while still prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. As I have said, no matter what one thinks of the bigger questions surrounding the debate about courts and commissions, it is important to understand their practical differences and how they must affect the choice of forum.
First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are affiliated with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or affiliated forces. That means members of other terrorist groups -- such as Hamas, Hizbollah or the FARC -- may not be tried in military commissions. Neither can the likes of Hosam Smadi or Michael Finton, two lone wolf terrorists who, though inspired by al Qaeda, were not part of it when they attempted to blow up buildings in our country last year. And, under current statute, military commissions may not be used against U.S. citizens like Anwar Awlaki or Jose Padilla, no matter what kind of horrendous acts they commit.
Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses available than the military commissions, which can only prosecute some violations of the laws of war. In addition to the many federal statutes for terrorism-related offenses, prosecutors can also make use of other charges -- like making false statements to investigators, passport or document fraud, or firearms offenses -- to convict suspected terrorists. This means that terrorist plots can be disrupted even while evidence to prove terrorism charges is still being collected. It means the government can rely on a range of levers to secure suspected terrorists' cooperation -- something that has repeatedly produced useful, actionable intelligence. And it means that civilian courts can provide just punishment for a broader range of bad acts.
Third, our civilian courts have well-established rules, significant experience and more than 200 years of precedents. In short, they have a reliability that establishes credibility. Although I'm confident we've done a good job of reforming and improving military commissions, they do not, yet, have the same time-tested track record of civilian courts.
Fourth, there is the issue of international cooperation. Our civilian courts are well respected internationally. Our allies are comfortable with the formal and informal mechanisms to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for trial in civilian court. As we prove the effectiveness and fairness of military commissions, I expect our allies will take notice. And I hope they will grow more willing to cooperate with commission trials.
It is unfortunate and unhelpful that some of these facts have been obscured as we engage in a national conversation about how best to prosecute terrorism offenses. As I have said, I know there are different views on how best to approach our national security work, and we should have a legitimate and robust conversation about it. But in listening to the recent debate, I've heard language that, frankly, seems calculated to scare people rather than to educate them. Such distortion is unfair to the dedicated men and women who serve in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. We should not stand by as the hard work of the FBI and other federal and state law enforcement officials, as well as career prosecutors, is marginalized and maligned. These men and women serve our country honorably -- just as our military personnel are doing overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Their work helps protect our country from terrorists, and they deserve our gratitude and our respect. Without them, government simply could not meet its most critical and basic responsibility of protecting American lives.
Meeting this responsibility has never been more difficult. In this time of war, we must pursue victory in a way that's pragmatic, effective, aggressive and true to the principles enshrined in our founding documents. The security of our country -- and the protection of its values and ideals -- is our shared concern. And it must become our common cause - one that unites us, strengthens us, and extends our nation's greatest traditions. You can, you must, remain leaders in that effort.
Thank you.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
I'm especially grateful for this opportunity to tell the Constitution Project's leadership and membership how much I appreciate your commitment to the cause of justice, to the promise of equal justice, and to our nation's most essential and enduring values.
On behalf of the Department of Justice, let me thank you, in particular, for your strong support of the Access to Justice Initiative that we launched last month. This new office -- led by Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe -- reflects an historic assurance that expanding access to legal services is, and will continue to be, a national priority. With the same dedication that you showed in calling for this initiative, I have no doubt that many of the attorneys and advocates gathered in this room will contribute to its success.
As we look toward this future, and toward the progress we seek to realize, I'd like to talk with you tonight about the unprecedented challenges that -- together -- we must overcome.
Just yesterday, I had the chance to discuss some of these challenges with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department has serious responsibilities -- none more serious than keeping the American people safe -- and our approach to these responsibilities understandably provokes robust debate, and even criticism. Now, as I look around this room, I realize that, just like yesterday, I'm speaking to some who have not always agreed with the entirety of our approach when it comes to protecting our national security. In fact, one of the things I've learned over the last year is that it simply is not possible, as Attorney General, to make everyone happy. But, despite this fact, I also know that everyone in this room shares a common goal: the goal of protecting America's safety, America's interests and America's values, by adhering to the rule of law. So tonight, let me tell you exactly where I stand when it comes to meeting this essential goal.
Let's start with one stark fact: We are a nation at war. In this war, we face an intelligent, nimble and determined enemy.
Let me assure you: I know the seriousness of the threat we face. I know that -- both in distant countries as well as within our own borders -- there are people plotting to kill Americans. I begin each day with a briefing on the latest, and most urgent, threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours. And I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
Like every person sitting in this room, like the President and those who serve this Administration, and like every Member serving in our Congress, I am determined to win this war. I know we can, and I am certain we will. But victory and security will not come easily. And they won't come at all if we approach this work by adhering to a rigid ideology or narrow methodology.
But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws. This means that the government's powers are defined both by our tangible laws -- the Constitution, statutes, court precedents -- and also by the basic principle of the rule of law. Within this framework, I believe we must do everything within our legal power to protect the American people. Just as on a battlefield, every arm of the government must use every appropriate weapon available to win this war. I know that some of those weapons may be unpopular. But when it comes to protecting the American people, the charge that we are "coddling terrorists" is no more accurate than the equally vehement cry that we have "rubber stamped the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies." In fact, we would be derelict in our most basic duties if we did not rely on the full scope of our law enforcement, intelligence, military and diplomatic capabilities to keep the American people safe. This means we must use both statecraft and war craft, both our criminal justice system and our military authorities, both our civilian courts and our military commissions, to defeat our enemies. The best traditions of our country -- of a responsible, respectful government, of the rule of law, of the neutral administration of justice -- call for this.
The Administration's -- and the Justice Department's -- commitment to using every available tool to fight terrorism also reflects a simple fact about the war in which we are now engaged: we face a variety of threats, threats that require us to be both aggressive and innovative.
It is no exaggeration to describe our federal justice system, which was established by Article III of our Constitution, and our military commissions not just as tools, but as weapons against those who seek to do us harm. Both enable us to target and incapacitate terrorists. Both also allow us to achieve justice and ensure accountability for violent acts against us. When selecting between these two weapons, the choice should be based on a case-specific assessment of the threat at hand, the evidence in possession and a careful consideration of what will best allow us to achieve justice. That choice is not always easy to make or easy to publicly explain, especially because court rules and intelligence equities sometimes make it impossible to discuss in an open forum the reasoning for a particular decision. But I can tell you tonight about some of the differences between the two fora.
It says something, though, about the quality of the debate when the idea of using both the Article III justice system and military commissions has become deeply controversial. This Administration rejects the false choice critics would have us make, because if we were to exclusively follow only one path while blocking the use of the other, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to bring every terrorist to justice. That is simply not an outcome we can accept.
For example, the proposal by some respected leaders in Congress to ban completely the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity obscures some basic facts and allows campaign slogans to overtake legal reality. The reality is this: Since 9/11, more than 400 individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in civilian courts. Without civilian law enforcement and civilian courts, we would be denied the use of what has been our most effective weapon for disrupting, dismantling and defeating terror plots. It would hinder our ability to secure actionable intelligence, and to enlist international cooperation, in our fight against terrorism. It would deny us the means to punish the guilty and deter those who would commit crimes against us. And it would be a disservice to the history of our civilian justice system. There's no question that if such a plan advances, it would seriously harm our national security.
Just look at what our civilian courts have helped to achieve. Over the past year, I am proud to say that the Justice Department, working closely with our partners in the intelligence community, was extraordinarily successful in disrupting plots, obtaining intelligence and incapacitating terrorists. And our ability to use our criminal justice system -- including civilian courts -- was a key part of this success.
For example, we detected and disrupted a plot to detonate explosives in Manhattan's subways. Najibullah Zazi has already pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in this case, and we have also charged several of his associates with participating in the plot and related crimes.
We secured a guilty plea from David Headley for assisting in the deadly attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and for plotting another attack in Denmark. As part of his plea, Headley has already provided valuable intelligence to the government about terrorist activities abroad.
Through the hard work of our federal law enforcement officials, we have obtained the cooperation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was charged in civilian court with attempting to bomb an airliner as it landed in Detroit last Christmas. Although I obviously cannot discuss the intelligence he has provided, I can tell you that it has been not just valuable, but actionable.
We convicted Aafia Siddiqui of attempting to murder U.S. military and law enforcement agents in Afghanistan. Siddiqui is a Pakistani physicist who, when captured in Afghanistan, was found with explosives, as well as information about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and descriptions of U.S. landmarks. She later opened fire on U.S. personnel. The Justice Department under the Bush Administration indicted her in civilian court in 2008, and she was convicted two months ago in New York.
These are just a few of many successes that resulted from the combined efforts of experienced prosecutors, intelligence agents, and the President's national security team. Each has made America safer.
On the other hand, military commissions are also useful in the proper circumstances, and we need them, too. Those who denigrate these commissions must remember that, while federal courts can handle most terrorism prosecutions, in some cases, military commissions are not only appropriate, but also necessary to convict and neutralize terrorists. Last year, the Obama Administration spent a great deal of time and effort working with Congress to revise the commission rules to ensure that they are consistent with the rule of law. Congress has taken extraordinary steps to reform and improve these commissions since they were first introduced.
The truth is that the reformed commissions draw from the same Constitutional protections that underlie our civilian courts -- the key difference being that, in commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and the difficulties of conducting investigations in a war zone. I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I've referred six cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution. And I expect to refer additional cases.
There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in select cases while still prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. As I have said, no matter what one thinks of the bigger questions surrounding the debate about courts and commissions, it is important to understand their practical differences and how they must affect the choice of forum.
First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are affiliated with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or affiliated forces. That means members of other terrorist groups -- such as Hamas, Hizbollah or the FARC -- may not be tried in military commissions. Neither can the likes of Hosam Smadi or Michael Finton, two lone wolf terrorists who, though inspired by al Qaeda, were not part of it when they attempted to blow up buildings in our country last year. And, under current statute, military commissions may not be used against U.S. citizens like Anwar Awlaki or Jose Padilla, no matter what kind of horrendous acts they commit.
Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses available than the military commissions, which can only prosecute some violations of the laws of war. In addition to the many federal statutes for terrorism-related offenses, prosecutors can also make use of other charges -- like making false statements to investigators, passport or document fraud, or firearms offenses -- to convict suspected terrorists. This means that terrorist plots can be disrupted even while evidence to prove terrorism charges is still being collected. It means the government can rely on a range of levers to secure suspected terrorists' cooperation -- something that has repeatedly produced useful, actionable intelligence. And it means that civilian courts can provide just punishment for a broader range of bad acts.
Third, our civilian courts have well-established rules, significant experience and more than 200 years of precedents. In short, they have a reliability that establishes credibility. Although I'm confident we've done a good job of reforming and improving military commissions, they do not, yet, have the same time-tested track record of civilian courts.
Fourth, there is the issue of international cooperation. Our civilian courts are well respected internationally. Our allies are comfortable with the formal and informal mechanisms to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for trial in civilian court. As we prove the effectiveness and fairness of military commissions, I expect our allies will take notice. And I hope they will grow more willing to cooperate with commission trials.
It is unfortunate and unhelpful that some of these facts have been obscured as we engage in a national conversation about how best to prosecute terrorism offenses. As I have said, I know there are different views on how best to approach our national security work, and we should have a legitimate and robust conversation about it. But in listening to the recent debate, I've heard language that, frankly, seems calculated to scare people rather than to educate them. Such distortion is unfair to the dedicated men and women who serve in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. We should not stand by as the hard work of the FBI and other federal and state law enforcement officials, as well as career prosecutors, is marginalized and maligned. These men and women serve our country honorably -- just as our military personnel are doing overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Their work helps protect our country from terrorists, and they deserve our gratitude and our respect. Without them, government simply could not meet its most critical and basic responsibility of protecting American lives.
Meeting this responsibility has never been more difficult. In this time of war, we must pursue victory in a way that's pragmatic, effective, aggressive and true to the principles enshrined in our founding documents. The security of our country -- and the protection of its values and ideals -- is our shared concern. And it must become our common cause - one that unites us, strengthens us, and extends our nation's greatest traditions. You can, you must, remain leaders in that effort.
Thank you.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, April 9, 2010
FRC Action Statement on Congressman Bart Stupak's Retirement
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments following the retirement announcement of Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.):
"For two decades Rep. Bart Stupak stood firm for the pro-life cause. It is a shame that he will leave Congress remembered more for his vote on the Obama health care bill, the largest abortion promoting piece of legislation in the last 30 years.
"Rep. Stupak's fall lies directly at the feet of the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama, who pushed their support of government funding of abortion over the principles of pro-life Members of their own party. Although Rep. Stupak certainly is responsible for the decision he made to endorse the Obama plan, the severe demands his President and Party placed on him were untoward and unremitting.
"FRC Action will continue to work with pro-life Members of both parties to protect the mothers and unborn children targeted by President Obama's health care overhaul."
"For two decades Rep. Bart Stupak stood firm for the pro-life cause. It is a shame that he will leave Congress remembered more for his vote on the Obama health care bill, the largest abortion promoting piece of legislation in the last 30 years.
"Rep. Stupak's fall lies directly at the feet of the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama, who pushed their support of government funding of abortion over the principles of pro-life Members of their own party. Although Rep. Stupak certainly is responsible for the decision he made to endorse the Obama plan, the severe demands his President and Party placed on him were untoward and unremitting.
"FRC Action will continue to work with pro-life Members of both parties to protect the mothers and unborn children targeted by President Obama's health care overhaul."
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Washington Physicians Launch Medicare Meltdown Petition Drive
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Medicare is breaking down and needs lasting repair, Washington physicians have told the state's Congressional Delegation. Now the state's physicians are launching a petition drive with their patients to help prevent a Medicare Meltdown.
The petition urges Congress to fix the flawed payment formula that threatens care for Washington's 897,000 Medicare recipients, including senior citizens and people with disabilities, and 337,000 military family members covered by TRICARE.
"The final blow to access to care resulted from Congress adjourning for its Spring recess without taking action to stop a 21.2% cut in Medicare payments for physicians' services. Current payment levels don't cover the cost of many services now," stated Dr. Deborah J. Harper, President of the Washington State Medical Association (WSMA). The WSMA represents over 9,600 physicians and surgeons across the state.
"For a Medicare patient, a doctor can mean everything: independence, hope, and security," said Dr. Harper. "But Medicare patients are feeling anything but secure about the future of their health care. Every year for a decade, physicians and other practitioners have faced steep Medicare cuts that jeopardize our ability to care for our patients."
Each year Congress slaps a temporary Band-Aid on the problem, postponing a steep cut to a later date. The most recent cut went into effect on April Fools' Day, and Congress is expected to place another temporary patch on the problem when it reconvenes next week. It would be the third patch this year alone. "This ongoing uncertainty hurts patients and their doctors. Patients need to know their doctor will be there when they need them," added Dr. Harper.
As of today, over 40 state medical associations have joined in the petition drive.
"Our seniors, patients with disabilities, and military families deserve better than the on-again/off-again health plan Medicare has become," said Dr. Harper. "The only acceptable solution is for Congress to repeal the flawed Medicare formula and replace it with a stable, fair funding mechanism that reflects the true cost of providing care."
Physicians report their Medicare patients routinely ask them if they know of other physicians -
both specialists and primary care - who will see and care for them. Finding doctors to care for new Medicare patients is a constant struggle, they say.
Physicians will be inviting their patients to join the grassroots effort to save Medicare by signing the online petition. A link to the easy-to-complete online petition is at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/meltdown/.
The petition urges Congress to fix the flawed payment formula that threatens care for Washington's 897,000 Medicare recipients, including senior citizens and people with disabilities, and 337,000 military family members covered by TRICARE.
"The final blow to access to care resulted from Congress adjourning for its Spring recess without taking action to stop a 21.2% cut in Medicare payments for physicians' services. Current payment levels don't cover the cost of many services now," stated Dr. Deborah J. Harper, President of the Washington State Medical Association (WSMA). The WSMA represents over 9,600 physicians and surgeons across the state.
"For a Medicare patient, a doctor can mean everything: independence, hope, and security," said Dr. Harper. "But Medicare patients are feeling anything but secure about the future of their health care. Every year for a decade, physicians and other practitioners have faced steep Medicare cuts that jeopardize our ability to care for our patients."
Each year Congress slaps a temporary Band-Aid on the problem, postponing a steep cut to a later date. The most recent cut went into effect on April Fools' Day, and Congress is expected to place another temporary patch on the problem when it reconvenes next week. It would be the third patch this year alone. "This ongoing uncertainty hurts patients and their doctors. Patients need to know their doctor will be there when they need them," added Dr. Harper.
As of today, over 40 state medical associations have joined in the petition drive.
"Our seniors, patients with disabilities, and military families deserve better than the on-again/off-again health plan Medicare has become," said Dr. Harper. "The only acceptable solution is for Congress to repeal the flawed Medicare formula and replace it with a stable, fair funding mechanism that reflects the true cost of providing care."
Physicians report their Medicare patients routinely ask them if they know of other physicians -
both specialists and primary care - who will see and care for them. Finding doctors to care for new Medicare patients is a constant struggle, they say.
Physicians will be inviting their patients to join the grassroots effort to save Medicare by signing the online petition. A link to the easy-to-complete online petition is at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/meltdown/.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Libertarians oppose census questions
Libertarian Party (LP) Chairman William Redpath released the following statement today regarding the 2010 census:
"The Libertarian Party believes that the federal government's current census procedures are unconstitutional, unnecessary, and too expensive. We believe that the census is constitutionally limited to collecting only one piece of information about each residence: the number of persons living in it. We urge Congress to change the census laws to comply with this constitutional limitation.
"The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to provide for a census in order to apportion Representatives correctly. The Constitution does not empower Congress to use a census for any other purpose. There is no need for Congress to collect additional information such as names, races, ages, sexes, or home ownership status. Unfortunately, the federal government wants to use the additional information to fine tune its control over the lives and money of the American people.
"The 2010 census is expected to cost over $14 billion. A recent report from the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce indicates that preparations for the 2010 census have already been filled with waste and bloat. A proper census, limited to just a headcount, would be far less expensive.
"Many Americans fear that the Census Bureau will not keep their information secret, and might turn personal details over to other government agencies. The Census Bureau promises that they will keep everything confidential, but they have broken that promise in the past. As David Kopel of the libertarian Cato Institute has pointed out, during World War I the Census Bureau handed over lists of names and addresses so the federal government could search for draft resisters. And, shockingly, during World War II, the Census Bureau told the Justice Department which neighborhoods had high concentrations of Japanese-Americans. The federal government then used that information to find Japanese-Americans and imprison them in concentration camps.
"As Congressman Ron Paul, 1988 Libertarian candidate for President, recently said, 'If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?'"
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The Libertarian Party believes that the federal government's current census procedures are unconstitutional, unnecessary, and too expensive. We believe that the census is constitutionally limited to collecting only one piece of information about each residence: the number of persons living in it. We urge Congress to change the census laws to comply with this constitutional limitation.
"The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to provide for a census in order to apportion Representatives correctly. The Constitution does not empower Congress to use a census for any other purpose. There is no need for Congress to collect additional information such as names, races, ages, sexes, or home ownership status. Unfortunately, the federal government wants to use the additional information to fine tune its control over the lives and money of the American people.
"The 2010 census is expected to cost over $14 billion. A recent report from the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce indicates that preparations for the 2010 census have already been filled with waste and bloat. A proper census, limited to just a headcount, would be far less expensive.
"Many Americans fear that the Census Bureau will not keep their information secret, and might turn personal details over to other government agencies. The Census Bureau promises that they will keep everything confidential, but they have broken that promise in the past. As David Kopel of the libertarian Cato Institute has pointed out, during World War I the Census Bureau handed over lists of names and addresses so the federal government could search for draft resisters. And, shockingly, during World War II, the Census Bureau told the Justice Department which neighborhoods had high concentrations of Japanese-Americans. The federal government then used that information to find Japanese-Americans and imprison them in concentration camps.
"As Congressman Ron Paul, 1988 Libertarian candidate for President, recently said, 'If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?'"
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, February 19, 2010
Federal Government Says 'One-Person One-Vote' Rule Does Not Bind Congress - Plaintiffs in Historic Lawsuit Demand Equal Voting Weight Throughout U.S.
/PRNewswire/ - Plaintiffs in the historic lawsuit seeking a larger and more equitable Congress filed their briefs today in U.S. District Court. The lawsuit, Clemons v. Department of Commerce, challenges the constitutionality of the current size of the United States House of Representatives, arguing that the provision in the United States Code (2 USC Section 2a) that freezes the size of the House at 435 members is unconstitutional, violating the well-established principle of "one-person, one-vote" by a substantial margin.
"In short, the government asserts that they don't have to adhere to the 'one-person, one-vote' equality standard that is imposed on the states" said Scott Scharpen, founder and president of Apportionment.US, the non-profit charity coordinating the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. "We honestly thought that we would get into a philosophical discussion around the question, 'How equal is equal?' Yet surprisingly, the government essentially claims that equality is not a factor at all when apportioning the U.S. House."
This is the same federal government, however, that forces states to achieve precise equality of congressional districts within a small fraction of 1%, yet at the national level, the federal government permits inequality to exceed 80%. The plaintiffs' response soundly refutes the government's extreme position with constitutional, historical and Supreme Court information.
The briefs filed today were prepared by Michael Farris, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Quoting from one of the plaintiffs' briefs, "The Supreme Court's most common method of comparison in one-person, one-vote cases is to contrast the two districts that are most over-represented and under-represented. It takes 183 voters in Montana to equal 100 voters in Wyoming. Thus, Montana voters are 'worth' only 54.6% of voters in Wyoming. This disparity is so extreme that it brings back the distasteful episode in American history where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes."
Unfortunately, the significant degree of inequality will persist and continue to get worse, based on the latest census projections. Therefore, the plaintiffs believe the time has come for Congress to properly reapportion itself according to the requirements of the Constitution and according to a "common sense" spirit of equality that all Americans deserve.
"In short, the government asserts that they don't have to adhere to the 'one-person, one-vote' equality standard that is imposed on the states" said Scott Scharpen, founder and president of Apportionment.US, the non-profit charity coordinating the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. "We honestly thought that we would get into a philosophical discussion around the question, 'How equal is equal?' Yet surprisingly, the government essentially claims that equality is not a factor at all when apportioning the U.S. House."
This is the same federal government, however, that forces states to achieve precise equality of congressional districts within a small fraction of 1%, yet at the national level, the federal government permits inequality to exceed 80%. The plaintiffs' response soundly refutes the government's extreme position with constitutional, historical and Supreme Court information.
The briefs filed today were prepared by Michael Farris, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Quoting from one of the plaintiffs' briefs, "The Supreme Court's most common method of comparison in one-person, one-vote cases is to contrast the two districts that are most over-represented and under-represented. It takes 183 voters in Montana to equal 100 voters in Wyoming. Thus, Montana voters are 'worth' only 54.6% of voters in Wyoming. This disparity is so extreme that it brings back the distasteful episode in American history where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes."
Unfortunately, the significant degree of inequality will persist and continue to get worse, based on the latest census projections. Therefore, the plaintiffs believe the time has come for Congress to properly reapportion itself according to the requirements of the Constitution and according to a "common sense" spirit of equality that all Americans deserve.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Nonprofit Warns Candidates Against Accepting Support From The Chamber of Commerce for Midterm Elections
/PRNewswire/ -- The StopTheChamber.com campaign (www.stopthechamber.com) today issued the following warning to any 2010 candidate who accepts any direct or indirect money, advertising support, or lip service from the United States Chamber of Commerce or any of its astroturf front operations: The Chamber and its CEO Tom Donohue are toxic assets plagued by scandal, criminal investigations, shareholder lawsuits, NGO criminal complaints, the National Scrooge Award, control by big business insiders, defections by responsible companies, and the antipathy of the general public. Any Chamber-supported candidate will be tied to these scandals during the midterm elections.
Tom Donohue, president and chief executive of the Chamber, promised the "largest, most aggressive voter education and issue advocacy effort in our nearly hundred-year history." In fact, Chamber is poised to spend upwards of $50 million to manipulate the 2010 mid-term elections. That money will go toward electing candidates who support polluters, robber barons, deniers of health care, warmongers, and those who ravage the environment. This money is, in addition to the billion or more dollars the Chamber has spent during the last decade, gutting the economy by helping companies ship American jobs overseas and raising CEO pay at the expense of workers. America is much worse off because of the Chamber's anti-American policies. Job losses are staggering, while businesses supporting the Chamber, its CEO, and an army of lobbyists pocket obscene profits and bonuses with no regard whatsoever for the American worker.
"The Chamber wants to buy Congress at a time when people are hurting, dying, losing their homes and jobs, and seeing their children unable to attend college," said StopTheChamber.com spokesperson and lawyer Kevin Zeese. "However, Americans have had enough of robber barons, and they are not going to take it anymore. If a candidate gets support from the Chamber, we are going to call him or her out for accepting tainted money -- money from big business that is not going into creating jobs, providing health care, and cleaning up Wall Street. We will demand that candidates renounce the Chamber's support, return any funding, and condemn the Chamber's advertisements and policies. If they do not, we will expose them as a friend of Tom Donohue, the man who repeatedly met with the leaders of Communist China to outsource good American jobs, the man who is under investigation by the SEC for insider trading and false reporting, the man who has lied to Congress about the Chamber's membership and small business support, the man who has created patriotic sounding front groups to mislead trusting Americans, the man who schemed with the likes of Jack Abramoff and Ken Lay to betray the public trust, and the man who has justified crime after crime committed by dues-paying members of the Chamber."
StopTheChamber urges all 2010 candidates to run clean election campaigns, untainted by money, laundered through the Chamber of Commerce. Neither the Chamber membership nor its board votes on how the Chamber spends money on elections. Instead, the decisions are made by a tightly knit group of big business insider tycoons led by Tom Donohue. But those businesses -- multinational corporate banks, Wall Street, insurance companies, big energy, and big pharma -- top the list of the most hated companies in America. They pay billions upon billions in bonuses to multi-millionaire executives who squeeze the lifeblood out of hardworking Americans. Candidates who ignore this reality and sell their vote for greed over the common good will find that the antipathy of American voters presently directed toward Wall Street and the Chamber will be directed at them.
StopTheChamber will be launching an ad campaign next week to spread this message to all candidates running in the 2010 midterm elections.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tom Donohue, president and chief executive of the Chamber, promised the "largest, most aggressive voter education and issue advocacy effort in our nearly hundred-year history." In fact, Chamber is poised to spend upwards of $50 million to manipulate the 2010 mid-term elections. That money will go toward electing candidates who support polluters, robber barons, deniers of health care, warmongers, and those who ravage the environment. This money is, in addition to the billion or more dollars the Chamber has spent during the last decade, gutting the economy by helping companies ship American jobs overseas and raising CEO pay at the expense of workers. America is much worse off because of the Chamber's anti-American policies. Job losses are staggering, while businesses supporting the Chamber, its CEO, and an army of lobbyists pocket obscene profits and bonuses with no regard whatsoever for the American worker.
"The Chamber wants to buy Congress at a time when people are hurting, dying, losing their homes and jobs, and seeing their children unable to attend college," said StopTheChamber.com spokesperson and lawyer Kevin Zeese. "However, Americans have had enough of robber barons, and they are not going to take it anymore. If a candidate gets support from the Chamber, we are going to call him or her out for accepting tainted money -- money from big business that is not going into creating jobs, providing health care, and cleaning up Wall Street. We will demand that candidates renounce the Chamber's support, return any funding, and condemn the Chamber's advertisements and policies. If they do not, we will expose them as a friend of Tom Donohue, the man who repeatedly met with the leaders of Communist China to outsource good American jobs, the man who is under investigation by the SEC for insider trading and false reporting, the man who has lied to Congress about the Chamber's membership and small business support, the man who has created patriotic sounding front groups to mislead trusting Americans, the man who schemed with the likes of Jack Abramoff and Ken Lay to betray the public trust, and the man who has justified crime after crime committed by dues-paying members of the Chamber."
StopTheChamber urges all 2010 candidates to run clean election campaigns, untainted by money, laundered through the Chamber of Commerce. Neither the Chamber membership nor its board votes on how the Chamber spends money on elections. Instead, the decisions are made by a tightly knit group of big business insider tycoons led by Tom Donohue. But those businesses -- multinational corporate banks, Wall Street, insurance companies, big energy, and big pharma -- top the list of the most hated companies in America. They pay billions upon billions in bonuses to multi-millionaire executives who squeeze the lifeblood out of hardworking Americans. Candidates who ignore this reality and sell their vote for greed over the common good will find that the antipathy of American voters presently directed toward Wall Street and the Chamber will be directed at them.
StopTheChamber will be launching an ad campaign next week to spread this message to all candidates running in the 2010 midterm elections.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)