In a video released Friday, Democrats launched the latest salvo in the finger-pointing game over which party is to blame for the $85 billion in automatic cuts, which launched March 1. As the video repeatedly points out, House Speaker John Boehner got,"I got 98 percent of what I wanted, I'm pretty happy."
Hat Tip - thehill.com
Showing posts with label The Hill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Hill. Show all posts
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Monday, September 26, 2011
Facebook to form its own PAC to back political candidates
According to TheHill.com people at Facebook has have filed paper work to form their own political action committee (PAC), possible calling their PAC either FBPAC.org or FBPAC.us.
In doing so, Facebook wishes to avoid the problems that other tech firms like Google and Microsoft have had in the past lobbying lawmakers.
Facebook confirmed it filed paperwork on Monday to start its own political action committee.
"FB PAC will give our employees a way to make their voice heard in the political process by supporting candidates who share our goals of promoting the value of innovation to our economy while giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected," said a spokesman via email.
The firm acknowledged the formation of the PAC after reports emerged of Facebook registering the domain names FBPAC.org and FBPAC.us. Creating a PAC is just the latest step in Facebook's continued expansion of its presence in Washington, but this is the first time the firm will back candidates.
Facebook is likely looking to avoid the type of Washington scrutiny that has affected other firms like Microsoft and Google, which is currently under a Federal Trade Commission antitrust probe. The perception Google was previously sympathetic towards Democrats hasn't helped with the GOP in charge of the House.
Facebook's lobbying spending has totalled $550,000 for fiscal 2011, a significant boost over he $350,000 spent in 2010 and $200,000 in 2009.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Has anyone heard of due process?: Politicians condem NLRB over complaint filed against Boeing
Unions and the rights of their workers are being trampled on, when is it going to stop? Maybe after work conditions and wages are returned to their pre-1920's standing and the return of the "Robber Barons" who lined the pockets of political cronies to looked the other way.
By Ross Eisenbrey, Economic Policy Institute Vice President
posted from The Hill's Congress Blog
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently filed a complaint against the Boeing Corporation based on evidence that Boeing moved work away from Washington State as punishment for the employees having exercised their legally protected right to strike. Politicians who either don’t know the law or don’t care about it have condemned the NLRB, including Mitt Romney and his fellow Republican candidates for President. They want to rile up the business community by painting the decision as the President’s, even though it was made by a career government employee on behalf of an independent agency outside the President’s control.
Various senators and congressmen are now trying to influence the Labor Board’s ultimate decision, which is not a policy decision but an adjudication. The law and policy were provided by Congress in 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act was passed by Congress and signed by Franklin Roosevelt. The NLRB’s only responsibility is to apply the law to the facts of this case, an undertaking that should be free from political influence or intimidation. And yet a growing number of legislators are threatening to slash the NLRB’s budget and punish its General Counsel if the case proceeds in the manner proscribed by statute.
This attack on the NLRB is political and self-interested. After all, the NLRB’s administrative law judge has not even held a trial yet. The only decision that has been made – and all legal scholars agree it was defensible – was by the General Counsel in response to a charge brought by the International Association of Machinists that there was good cause to believe that Boeing had violated the law. In other words, the union provided enough evidence of Boeing’s motivation that a trial in the matter is justified.
The members of the NLRB will not even review the case unless and until the trial judge’s decision is appealed. So all the howling about the NLRB’s assault on capitalism and free enterprise is premature, to say the least.
Sadly, the political pressure is having an effect already. Even Democrats are racing to say that, of course, business has the right to relocate anywhere it wants to, even to a so-called right-to-work state like South Carolina. And they’re right, up to a point.
Businesses are free to relocate to other states or countries. South Carolina has been a stop-over for businesses relocating from the north for decades; many companies, from textile manufacturers to furniture companies and paper processors, often go on to countries like China after absorbing the tax breaks and other subsidies South Carolina offers them. Unions are rare in South Carolina, but independent unions in China are actually illegal, and wages are even lower in Chinese textile plants than in Gaston or Winnsboro.
But the motive for a relocation matters. Moving for cheaper labor is legal. But closing a plant in Los Angeles and moving to North Dakota to avoid hiring Hispanics or African Americans is not legal. Shutting a factory in New York and moving it to South Carolina to avoid hiring Jews or Muslims would not be legal, either. One can imagine other illegal motivations, but the point is that we reasonably limit relocations when they violate laws. In Boeing’s case, the bad motive that has been alleged is a desire to punish the machinist union members for exercising their legally protected right to strike. E-mail traffic among Boeing managers is alleged to show that it was due to the desire to punish the Washington State Boeing workers for having engaged in lawful strikes that airline production work was transferred. Congress has prohibited job decisions based explicitly on unlawful animus, whether it’s hostility to blacks, women, Mormons, Muslims, Jews or unions. Instead of browbeating the neutral prosecutor and judge, why not let them do their jobs and apply the law to the facts? We used to call that due process.
Ross Eisenbrey is a lawyer and former commissioner of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Committee. He has been vice president of the Economic Policy Institute since 2003.
By Ross Eisenbrey, Economic Policy Institute Vice President
posted from The Hill's Congress Blog
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently filed a complaint against the Boeing Corporation based on evidence that Boeing moved work away from Washington State as punishment for the employees having exercised their legally protected right to strike. Politicians who either don’t know the law or don’t care about it have condemned the NLRB, including Mitt Romney and his fellow Republican candidates for President. They want to rile up the business community by painting the decision as the President’s, even though it was made by a career government employee on behalf of an independent agency outside the President’s control.
Various senators and congressmen are now trying to influence the Labor Board’s ultimate decision, which is not a policy decision but an adjudication. The law and policy were provided by Congress in 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act was passed by Congress and signed by Franklin Roosevelt. The NLRB’s only responsibility is to apply the law to the facts of this case, an undertaking that should be free from political influence or intimidation. And yet a growing number of legislators are threatening to slash the NLRB’s budget and punish its General Counsel if the case proceeds in the manner proscribed by statute.
This attack on the NLRB is political and self-interested. After all, the NLRB’s administrative law judge has not even held a trial yet. The only decision that has been made – and all legal scholars agree it was defensible – was by the General Counsel in response to a charge brought by the International Association of Machinists that there was good cause to believe that Boeing had violated the law. In other words, the union provided enough evidence of Boeing’s motivation that a trial in the matter is justified.
The members of the NLRB will not even review the case unless and until the trial judge’s decision is appealed. So all the howling about the NLRB’s assault on capitalism and free enterprise is premature, to say the least.
Sadly, the political pressure is having an effect already. Even Democrats are racing to say that, of course, business has the right to relocate anywhere it wants to, even to a so-called right-to-work state like South Carolina. And they’re right, up to a point.
Businesses are free to relocate to other states or countries. South Carolina has been a stop-over for businesses relocating from the north for decades; many companies, from textile manufacturers to furniture companies and paper processors, often go on to countries like China after absorbing the tax breaks and other subsidies South Carolina offers them. Unions are rare in South Carolina, but independent unions in China are actually illegal, and wages are even lower in Chinese textile plants than in Gaston or Winnsboro.
But the motive for a relocation matters. Moving for cheaper labor is legal. But closing a plant in Los Angeles and moving to North Dakota to avoid hiring Hispanics or African Americans is not legal. Shutting a factory in New York and moving it to South Carolina to avoid hiring Jews or Muslims would not be legal, either. One can imagine other illegal motivations, but the point is that we reasonably limit relocations when they violate laws. In Boeing’s case, the bad motive that has been alleged is a desire to punish the machinist union members for exercising their legally protected right to strike. E-mail traffic among Boeing managers is alleged to show that it was due to the desire to punish the Washington State Boeing workers for having engaged in lawful strikes that airline production work was transferred. Congress has prohibited job decisions based explicitly on unlawful animus, whether it’s hostility to blacks, women, Mormons, Muslims, Jews or unions. Instead of browbeating the neutral prosecutor and judge, why not let them do their jobs and apply the law to the facts? We used to call that due process.
Ross Eisenbrey is a lawyer and former commissioner of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Committee. He has been vice president of the Economic Policy Institute since 2003.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Reid: Democrats will use 50-vote tactic to finish healthcare within 60 days
By Michael O'Brien from the Hill.com's Blog Briefing Room
Democrats will finish their health reform efforts within the next two months by using a majority-vote maneuver in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster.
"I've had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi," Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" in Nevada. "And we're really trying to move forward on this."
The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House.
"We'll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we've already done," Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process. "We're going to have that done in the next 60 days."
The move would allow Democrats to essentially go it alone on health reform, especially after losing their filibuter-proof majority in the Senate after Sen. Scott Brown's (R) special election victory in Massachusetts.
Republicans have protested the maneuver as a hyperpartisan tactic to ram through a health bill, and have said that plans to use the reconciliation process make moot a bipartisan summit at the White House this week, where both GOP and Democratic leaders are supposed to present their ideas on healthcare.
Reid said that the final Democratic bill is likely to be unveiled Monday night.
Democrats will finish their health reform efforts within the next two months by using a majority-vote maneuver in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster.
"I've had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi," Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" in Nevada. "And we're really trying to move forward on this."
The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House.
"We'll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we've already done," Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process. "We're going to have that done in the next 60 days."
The move would allow Democrats to essentially go it alone on health reform, especially after losing their filibuter-proof majority in the Senate after Sen. Scott Brown's (R) special election victory in Massachusetts.
Republicans have protested the maneuver as a hyperpartisan tactic to ram through a health bill, and have said that plans to use the reconciliation process make moot a bipartisan summit at the White House this week, where both GOP and Democratic leaders are supposed to present their ideas on healthcare.
Reid said that the final Democratic bill is likely to be unveiled Monday night.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Poll: President Obama ends first year with 57 percent average approval rating
From The Hill.com
President Barack Obama will round out his first year in office with an average 57 percent approval rating, according to Gallup.
Interestingly enough, that would place Obama nearly last in a ranking of former presidents' first-year job approval averages, pollsters noted.
Former Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all ended their first year in office with much higher job approval totals. Former President Ronald Reagan tied Obama at 57 percent while former President Bill Clinton scored far below Obama, at 49 percent.
President Barack Obama will round out his first year in office with an average 57 percent approval rating, according to Gallup.
Interestingly enough, that would place Obama nearly last in a ranking of former presidents' first-year job approval averages, pollsters noted.
Former Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all ended their first year in office with much higher job approval totals. Former President Ronald Reagan tied Obama at 57 percent while former President Bill Clinton scored far below Obama, at 49 percent.
Obama tweets for first time
From The Hill.com
By Kim Hart -
President Barack Obama has "pushed the button" to send his first-ever tweet during a visit to the D.C. offices for the American Red Cross.
Obama used the relief organization's page to tweet: tweeted: "President Obama and the First Lady are here visiting our disaster operation center right now."
The next tweet read, "President Obama pushed the button on the last tweet. It was his first ever tweet!"
It was the first time that the president who made history using social media during the 2008 election had personally used the technology.
While both the White House and the president's campaign have Twitter accounts (with extensive lists of followers, no less), those accounts are managed and written by staff — something the president has in common with a majority of officials who are on Twitter.
Obama remarked on the occasion, according to several reporters who witnessed the act.
“I just tweeted. The first time I tweeted," Obama said, noting as well that the Red Cross had raised $21 million through Twitter to send relief to earthquake-stricken Haiti.
By Kim Hart -
President Barack Obama has "pushed the button" to send his first-ever tweet during a visit to the D.C. offices for the American Red Cross.
Obama used the relief organization's page to tweet: tweeted: "President Obama and the First Lady are here visiting our disaster operation center right now."
The next tweet read, "President Obama pushed the button on the last tweet. It was his first ever tweet!"
It was the first time that the president who made history using social media during the 2008 election had personally used the technology.
While both the White House and the president's campaign have Twitter accounts (with extensive lists of followers, no less), those accounts are managed and written by staff — something the president has in common with a majority of officials who are on Twitter.
Obama remarked on the occasion, according to several reporters who witnessed the act.
“I just tweeted. The first time I tweeted," Obama said, noting as well that the Red Cross had raised $21 million through Twitter to send relief to earthquake-stricken Haiti.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
RNC chairman doubts GOP will win back the House this November
The Hill -
By Bob Cusack
RNC Chairman Michael Steele said Monday night that he doesn't think Republicans will win control of the House in 2010 .
Asked by Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel whether he believes the GOP is going to take over the House, the chairman of the Republican National Committee responded, "Not this year."
Pressed on his prediction, Steele later said, "I don't know yet." Steele said, "We're going to see, I think, nice pickups in the House," but added it is difficult to provide a number because it is still early in the 2010 cycle.
Other Republicans, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and House Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), have expressed more optimism about the chances the GOP will retake the lower chamber this year.
Hannity urged Steele on Monday night to draft a new Contract with America before the November elections.
Steele did not completely commit to a new contract, but said, "I think you're going to a see a definitive document with clear definitions of who we are."
By Bob Cusack
RNC Chairman Michael Steele said Monday night that he doesn't think Republicans will win control of the House in 2010 .
Asked by Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel whether he believes the GOP is going to take over the House, the chairman of the Republican National Committee responded, "Not this year."
Pressed on his prediction, Steele later said, "I don't know yet." Steele said, "We're going to see, I think, nice pickups in the House," but added it is difficult to provide a number because it is still early in the 2010 cycle.
Other Republicans, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and House Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), have expressed more optimism about the chances the GOP will retake the lower chamber this year.
Hannity urged Steele on Monday night to draft a new Contract with America before the November elections.
Steele did not completely commit to a new contract, but said, "I think you're going to a see a definitive document with clear definitions of who we are."
Monday, June 8, 2009
Health care is a right, not a privilege
by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders
Let’s be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11—but this occurs every year.
In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation—and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.
At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees—rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely.
Further, despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, our health care outcomes lag behind many other nations. We get poor value for what we spend. According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy and preventable deaths.
As the health care debate heats up in Washington, we as a nation have to answer two very fundamental questions. First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege—which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?
I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.
Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Its function is not to provide quality health care for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible (30 percent) of each health care dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are administered for far less.
In recent years, while we have experienced an acute shortage of primary health care doctors as well as nurses and dentists, we are paying for a huge increase in health care bureaucrats and bill collectors. Over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the numbers of physicians. Not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation’s major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And, while more and more Americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. It’s not just William McGuire, the former head of United Health, who several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion or Cigna CEO Edward Hanway who made more than $120 million in the last five years. The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million.
Moving toward a national health insurance program which provides cost-effective universal, comprehensive and quality health care for all will not be easy. The powerful special interests—the insurance companies, drug companies and medical equipment suppliers—will wage an all-out fight to make sure that we maintain the current system which enables them to make billions of dollars. In recent years they have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying, campaign contributions and advertising and, with unlimited resources, they will continue spending as much as they need.
But, at the end of the day, as difficult as it may be, the fight for a national health care program will prevail. Like the civil rights movement, the struggle for women’s rights and other grass-roots efforts, justice in this country is often delayed—but it will not be denied. We shall overcome!
June 8, 2009
Let’s be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11—but this occurs every year.
In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation—and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.
At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees—rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely.
Further, despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, our health care outcomes lag behind many other nations. We get poor value for what we spend. According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy and preventable deaths.
As the health care debate heats up in Washington, we as a nation have to answer two very fundamental questions. First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege—which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?
I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.
Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Its function is not to provide quality health care for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible (30 percent) of each health care dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are administered for far less.
In recent years, while we have experienced an acute shortage of primary health care doctors as well as nurses and dentists, we are paying for a huge increase in health care bureaucrats and bill collectors. Over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the numbers of physicians. Not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation’s major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And, while more and more Americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. It’s not just William McGuire, the former head of United Health, who several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion or Cigna CEO Edward Hanway who made more than $120 million in the last five years. The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million.
Moving toward a national health insurance program which provides cost-effective universal, comprehensive and quality health care for all will not be easy. The powerful special interests—the insurance companies, drug companies and medical equipment suppliers—will wage an all-out fight to make sure that we maintain the current system which enables them to make billions of dollars. In recent years they have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying, campaign contributions and advertising and, with unlimited resources, they will continue spending as much as they need.
But, at the end of the day, as difficult as it may be, the fight for a national health care program will prevail. Like the civil rights movement, the struggle for women’s rights and other grass-roots efforts, justice in this country is often delayed—but it will not be denied. We shall overcome!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Who is Sonia Sotomayor?
by Eric Zimmermann
May 1, 2009
Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor is name most talked about as Justice Souter's possible replacement.
What do we know about her?
Originally appointed to the federal court by President George H.W. Bush, Sotomayor was elevated to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Clinton. Born in 1954, she's a graduate of Yale Law School and served as assistant district attorney for New York County from 1979-1984.
In the next few days and weeks, we're likely to hear a lot more on Sotomayor's legal opinions, which will become fodder in a possible confirmation battle.
As a preliminary sketch, here are a few of the more colorful cases Sotomayor helped decide. NOTE: I am not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the constitutional significance of each of these decisions.
In 2004, a panel of judges including Sotomayor revoked the citizenship of Jack Reimer, then 96, when it came to light that Reimer had served in the German Army in WWII. Here's the twist: Reimer was originally drafted into the Russian Army, but was captured by the Germans in June 1941. He was forced to train as a guard and, prosecutors alleged, helped clear Jewish ghettos forcibly. Prosecutors alleged Reimer had misrepresented his wartime activities when he originally applied for a U.S. visa under the Displaced Persons Act.
Here's how Sotomayor ruled:
"As an initial matter, Reimer argues that it would be unjust to consider his wartime conduct 'assistance' in persecution, contending that he was obliged either to go along with the commands of his superiors or face death himself," Sotomayor wrote. "This argument, however, is plainly foreclosed by Fedorenko. There, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that those forced into the Nazis' service should not be held responsible for their conduct, reasoning that, if Congress had intended for visas to be withheld from only those who voluntarily assisted in persecution, it would have stated so in the [Displaced Persons Act]."
In September 2003, Sotomayor joined in a ruling that upheld the constitutionally of so-called "perp walks" for alleged criminals. As long as there is not an "an inherently fictional dramatization" involved in the scene, the court ruled, perp walks could continue.
"The image of the accused being led away to contend with the justice system powerfully communicates government efforts to thwart the criminal element, and it may deter others from attempting similar crimes," wrote Judge Fred Parker.
In 2004, Sotomayor joined a ruling that upheld a law targeted at the Ku Klux Klan that would ban mask-wearing in public.
"The masks that the American Knights seek to wear in public demonstrations does not convey a message independently of the robe and hood," the court decided. "That is, since the robe and hood alone clearly serve to identify the American Knights with the Klan, we conclude that the mask does not communicate any message that the robe and the hood do not. The expressive force of the mask is, therefore, redundant."
This is only a tiny glimpse of Sotomayor's legal philosophy. Stay tuned as operatives on both sides of the fight dredge up past opinions of all the possible nominees.
What do we know about her?
Originally appointed to the federal court by President George H.W. Bush, Sotomayor was elevated to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Clinton. Born in 1954, she's a graduate of Yale Law School and served as assistant district attorney for New York County from 1979-1984.
In the next few days and weeks, we're likely to hear a lot more on Sotomayor's legal opinions, which will become fodder in a possible confirmation battle.
As a preliminary sketch, here are a few of the more colorful cases Sotomayor helped decide. NOTE: I am not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the constitutional significance of each of these decisions.
In 2004, a panel of judges including Sotomayor revoked the citizenship of Jack Reimer, then 96, when it came to light that Reimer had served in the German Army in WWII. Here's the twist: Reimer was originally drafted into the Russian Army, but was captured by the Germans in June 1941. He was forced to train as a guard and, prosecutors alleged, helped clear Jewish ghettos forcibly. Prosecutors alleged Reimer had misrepresented his wartime activities when he originally applied for a U.S. visa under the Displaced Persons Act.
Here's how Sotomayor ruled:
"As an initial matter, Reimer argues that it would be unjust to consider his wartime conduct 'assistance' in persecution, contending that he was obliged either to go along with the commands of his superiors or face death himself," Sotomayor wrote. "This argument, however, is plainly foreclosed by Fedorenko. There, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that those forced into the Nazis' service should not be held responsible for their conduct, reasoning that, if Congress had intended for visas to be withheld from only those who voluntarily assisted in persecution, it would have stated so in the [Displaced Persons Act]."
In September 2003, Sotomayor joined in a ruling that upheld the constitutionally of so-called "perp walks" for alleged criminals. As long as there is not an "an inherently fictional dramatization" involved in the scene, the court ruled, perp walks could continue.
"The image of the accused being led away to contend with the justice system powerfully communicates government efforts to thwart the criminal element, and it may deter others from attempting similar crimes," wrote Judge Fred Parker.
In 2004, Sotomayor joined a ruling that upheld a law targeted at the Ku Klux Klan that would ban mask-wearing in public.
"The masks that the American Knights seek to wear in public demonstrations does not convey a message independently of the robe and hood," the court decided. "That is, since the robe and hood alone clearly serve to identify the American Knights with the Klan, we conclude that the mask does not communicate any message that the robe and the hood do not. The expressive force of the mask is, therefore, redundant."
This is only a tiny glimpse of Sotomayor's legal philosophy. Stay tuned as operatives on both sides of the fight dredge up past opinions of all the possible nominees.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Antitrust Eyes Turn Toward Google
Could this be the begining of the end of Google as we know it? I, for one certainly hope not.
The Hill is reporting that the Obama Administration signaled this week that they will be taking a closer look and a more aggressive stance againt monopolies, which will surely mean trouble for the internet giant, even though it's executives and many of its employees have thrown huge amounts of cash and support to Obama.
Read all about it from TheHill .com >>>Here
Monday, May 4, 2009
Obama triggers tax fight
The Hill - Leading the News
By Walter Alarkon and Sam Youngman
By Walter Alarkon and Sam Youngman
President Obama launched a high-stakes fight with big business Monday, calling for changes to the tax code that could raise taxes on U.S. multinationals by $210 billion.
Obama described the tax system as broken, adding that it is filled with loopholes written by corporate lobbyists that provide incentives for shipping jobs abroad.
“It’s a tax code full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share,” Obama said.
The administration’s proposals could mean a tax hike of anywhere from 8 to 15 percent for U.S. corporations, on top of a base corporate tax rate that is already high for an industrialized country, said Clint Stretch, a tax expert for Deloitte Tax LLP.
“It doesn’t take some kind of rocket scientist to figure out that really can’t be very good for American businesses from a competitiveness point of view,” Stretch said.
The crackdown on corporate tax incentives is the latest move by the administration to squeeze big business. The president, who had taken heat from the left for continuing unpopular bank bailouts initiated by the Bush administration, has since called for restrictions on executive pay, the firing of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner and a reorganization of Chrysler that offered a better deal to unions than a collection of hedge funds and investment banks that owned debt from the troubled automaker.
The tax proposals are a frontal assault on U.S. multinational companies, which are expected to engage in an aggressive lobbying and public-relations campaign to fight them off.
Obama described the tax system as broken, adding that it is filled with loopholes written by corporate lobbyists that provide incentives for shipping jobs abroad.
“It’s a tax code full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share,” Obama said.
The administration’s proposals could mean a tax hike of anywhere from 8 to 15 percent for U.S. corporations, on top of a base corporate tax rate that is already high for an industrialized country, said Clint Stretch, a tax expert for Deloitte Tax LLP.
“It doesn’t take some kind of rocket scientist to figure out that really can’t be very good for American businesses from a competitiveness point of view,” Stretch said.
The crackdown on corporate tax incentives is the latest move by the administration to squeeze big business. The president, who had taken heat from the left for continuing unpopular bank bailouts initiated by the Bush administration, has since called for restrictions on executive pay, the firing of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner and a reorganization of Chrysler that offered a better deal to unions than a collection of hedge funds and investment banks that owned debt from the troubled automaker.
The tax proposals are a frontal assault on U.S. multinational companies, which are expected to engage in an aggressive lobbying and public-relations campaign to fight them off.
Read more >>> Here
Monday, April 13, 2009
Obama hails rescue of American captain
The Hill.com
President Obama hailed the rescue Sunday of an American captain held hostage for four days off the coast of Somalia.
Richard Phillips, the ship captain, was freed unharmed after a firefight killed three of his pirate captors. The fourth pirate was captured and has been taken into American custody, according to news reports.
Obama praised Phillips's courage in a statement pushing for greater safety measures in the region. The pirate attack on Phillips’s ship was the first on American sailors in 200 years, but it was the sixth attack in the past week along the lawless Somali coast.
“We remain resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region,” Obama said. “To achieve that goal, we must continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, be prepared to interdict acts of piracy and ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes.”
Admiral Thad Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard on Sunday echoed Obama’s comments, saying that the government and military were taking steps to ensure that future hijackings of in the region did not take place.
“We’re in the process of helping create a code of conduct for merchant ships so they can minimize the threats,” Allen said on ABC’s This Week. “Slow ships with low freeboard present a much greater target than faster ships and higher freeboard.”
Congress was spurred to action as well, as earlier this week Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for hearings on the mounting piracy threat in the region when Congress returns next week.
The armed pirates attacked Phillips’ ship, the Maersk Alabama, on Wednesday while in the Indian Ocean delivering food aid to Kenya for the World Food Program and the United States Agency for International Development.
The 20-member crew regained control of the ship from the attackers, but Phillips was captured and held for a reported $2 million ransom by the four pirates on one of the ships’ lifeboats.
Phillips attempted to escape from his captors on Friday by jumping into the water, but he was recaptured shortly thereafter.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Obama warns Dems sacrifice necessary on stimulus
WILLIAMSBURG, VA. -- President Obama on Thursday told House Democrats to ask not what the economic stimulus plan can do for them, but what they can do to pass the economic stimulus plan.
Harking back to the themes of sacrifice laid out in his inaugural address, Obama, keynoting the House Democratic Caucus issues conference, called on Democrats to be prepared to yield on some of their priorities in order to get a near-trillion dollar stimulus plan onto his desk as soon as possible.
“This package is not going to be absolutely perfect,” Obama told a packed room of over 200 Democrats in Williamsburg, Va. “And you can nit and you can pick, you know that’s the game we all play here. You know how to play that game.”
“What I’m saying is, now we can’t afford to play it,” Obama continued.
The timing of the President’s remarks could not have been more apt. Since the House passed its $819 bill last week – without a single Republican vote – fractures in the Democratic caucus have only grown. Progressives began to balk at the addition of tax cuts and removal of certain spending items – done to placate Senate Republicans – while conservatives complained ever more forcefully about the total amont of spending in the bill.
In the Senate, Democratic leaders hope to have a vote on a different version of the stimulus on Friday. The Senate version is more than $900 billion, which has made centrists in both parties nervous.
In preparing the House to accept a final bill that may end up far different than the one they passed – and that Democratic leaders have forcefully defended -- Obama called on Democrats to “not let the perfect be the enemy of the absolutely necessary.”
“We’ve got to pull together,” he continued. “They're going to be some things that don’t get included that each of us would like to see. All of us are going to have to make some sacrifices. And we have to accommodate the interests of a range of people. And the House is going to have to work with the Senate.”
What changes the House may have to accept remain to be seen. The Senate added a one-year patch to prevent more middle class taxpayers from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Senate bill also includes a $15,000 tax credit for home owners intended to spur on the housing market.
Read more >>>Here
Harking back to the themes of sacrifice laid out in his inaugural address, Obama, keynoting the House Democratic Caucus issues conference, called on Democrats to be prepared to yield on some of their priorities in order to get a near-trillion dollar stimulus plan onto his desk as soon as possible.
“This package is not going to be absolutely perfect,” Obama told a packed room of over 200 Democrats in Williamsburg, Va. “And you can nit and you can pick, you know that’s the game we all play here. You know how to play that game.”
“What I’m saying is, now we can’t afford to play it,” Obama continued.
The timing of the President’s remarks could not have been more apt. Since the House passed its $819 bill last week – without a single Republican vote – fractures in the Democratic caucus have only grown. Progressives began to balk at the addition of tax cuts and removal of certain spending items – done to placate Senate Republicans – while conservatives complained ever more forcefully about the total amont of spending in the bill.
In the Senate, Democratic leaders hope to have a vote on a different version of the stimulus on Friday. The Senate version is more than $900 billion, which has made centrists in both parties nervous.
In preparing the House to accept a final bill that may end up far different than the one they passed – and that Democratic leaders have forcefully defended -- Obama called on Democrats to “not let the perfect be the enemy of the absolutely necessary.”
“We’ve got to pull together,” he continued. “They're going to be some things that don’t get included that each of us would like to see. All of us are going to have to make some sacrifices. And we have to accommodate the interests of a range of people. And the House is going to have to work with the Senate.”
What changes the House may have to accept remain to be seen. The Senate added a one-year patch to prevent more middle class taxpayers from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Senate bill also includes a $15,000 tax credit for home owners intended to spur on the housing market.
Read more >>>Here
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Dems: GOP will pay political price for stimulus vote
Democrats are blasting House Republican leaders for pressing their conference to vote against the stimulus bill and warn the party that it will face political consequences.
In a memo on the “Republican Problem” to “interested parties” that was e-mailed to reporters on Thursday morning, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) charged Republicans with acting in a “partisan and irresponsible manner.”
By voting against the $819 billion stimulus package, spokesman Brendan Daly said Republicans were rejecting tax cuts, jobs in their communities and critical services such as health care. He also rejected arguments that a Republican alternative bill focused on additional tax cuts would have created more jobs.
Republicans say their bill would have created 6 million jobs, while Democrats count 3 million jobs created from the package approved by the House.
Daly all but explicitly said Republicans were playing politics on the bill against a Democratic Congress and president, noting that in 1993, the last time a Republican minority faced a Democratic majority and president, they voted against a budget bill en masse.
“There’s a pattern here of Republican economic mismanagement and Democrats stepping up to do what’s needed for the good of the country while Republicans acted in a partisan and irresponsible manner,” Daly wrote.
Read more >>> Here
Obama gets his stimulus but not bipartisan support
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) herself rose to the chair to call the final vote, which was 244-188. Eleven Democrats joined every Republican in opposing the bill.
Although Democrats erupted in cheers after final passage, it was somewhat of a bittersweet victory for the majority, which has been championing what it claimed to be the bipartisan nature of the economic recovery bill.
The massive bill – which has been the top priority of both President Obama and congressional Democrats – will have to be reconciled with a companion bill working its way through the Senate that is now nearly $900 billion with the inclusion of a one-year patch for the alternative minimum tax intended to prevent its application to middle-class taxpayers. Democratic leaders are preparing for a bicameral conference to iron out what could be significant differences between the two bills.
The House bill was a mixture of tax cuts and spending proposals that deviated in detail from the president’s initial proposal, and that divided the chamber along party lines.
Although Democrats erupted in cheers after final passage, it was somewhat of a bittersweet victory for the majority, which has been championing what it claimed to be the bipartisan nature of the economic recovery bill.
The massive bill – which has been the top priority of both President Obama and congressional Democrats – will have to be reconciled with a companion bill working its way through the Senate that is now nearly $900 billion with the inclusion of a one-year patch for the alternative minimum tax intended to prevent its application to middle-class taxpayers. Democratic leaders are preparing for a bicameral conference to iron out what could be significant differences between the two bills.
The House bill was a mixture of tax cuts and spending proposals that deviated in detail from the president’s initial proposal, and that divided the chamber along party lines.
Read more >>> Here
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Rangel To Reintroduce Military Draft Measure
The Hill - Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.
Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”
Rangel’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.
In the wake of that historic victory, Pelosi said publicly that she did not support the draft and that the Democratic leadership would not back Rangel’s legislation. She also said Rangel’s legislation was not about reinstating the draft but was instead “a way to make a point” about social inequality.
Reintroducing the military draft bill, which would attract media attention, will be trickier for Rangel in 2009 than it was a couple years ago because the Ways and Means Committee chairman is now under investigation by the House ethics committee.
Democratic leaders have given Rangel a leading role in helping craft the new economic stimulus bill despite an array of ethics allegations that have surfaced over the last several months. The charges have ranged from failing to report rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic to an alleged quid pro quo involving a legislative favor for a donor to an education center bearing Rangel’s name.
Read More >>>HERE
Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”
Rangel’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.
In the wake of that historic victory, Pelosi said publicly that she did not support the draft and that the Democratic leadership would not back Rangel’s legislation. She also said Rangel’s legislation was not about reinstating the draft but was instead “a way to make a point” about social inequality.
Reintroducing the military draft bill, which would attract media attention, will be trickier for Rangel in 2009 than it was a couple years ago because the Ways and Means Committee chairman is now under investigation by the House ethics committee.
Democratic leaders have given Rangel a leading role in helping craft the new economic stimulus bill despite an array of ethics allegations that have surfaced over the last several months. The charges have ranged from failing to report rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic to an alleged quid pro quo involving a legislative favor for a donor to an education center bearing Rangel’s name.
Read More >>>HERE
Monday, January 12, 2009
Senate Dems set Feb. 13 goal for stimulus
The Hill - Democratic senators have set a goal of Feb. 13 to pass an $800 billion economic stimulus package proposed by President-elect Obama.
Senate Democrats said they made significant progress during a rare two-hour Sunday meeting with Lawrence Summers, a senior Obama aide who will head the National Economic Council.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), vice chairman of the Democratic conference, told reporters that Obama’s economic team was proceeding with the stimulus in the "right way."
"They put together a broad outline and are asking us to fill in the details," said Schumer. "We could get it to the president’s desk by the 13th, which is our deadline."
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, applauded the incoming Obama administration’s response to criticism its proposal received on Capitol Hill last week.
"It is very clear that they’ve listened and heard and are working to respond," said Conrad. "They’re not defensive and arguing back."
Conrad said he received a call from Summers on Friday after he criticized Obama’s proposal to include several tax incentives such as a $3,000 tax credit to employers for each new hire.
Read More >>> Here
Senate Democrats said they made significant progress during a rare two-hour Sunday meeting with Lawrence Summers, a senior Obama aide who will head the National Economic Council.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), vice chairman of the Democratic conference, told reporters that Obama’s economic team was proceeding with the stimulus in the "right way."
"They put together a broad outline and are asking us to fill in the details," said Schumer. "We could get it to the president’s desk by the 13th, which is our deadline."
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, applauded the incoming Obama administration’s response to criticism its proposal received on Capitol Hill last week.
"It is very clear that they’ve listened and heard and are working to respond," said Conrad. "They’re not defensive and arguing back."
Conrad said he received a call from Summers on Friday after he criticized Obama’s proposal to include several tax incentives such as a $3,000 tax credit to employers for each new hire.
Read More >>> Here
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Quote of the Day: " I Don't Work For Obama"
--- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in an interview with The Hill
Liberals have a trillion reasons to accept tax cuts in stimulus
The most liberal members of Congress huddled together in early December, and decided they needed to push their fellow Democrats to be bold with the economic stimulus legislation being drafted.
So the Congressional Progressive Caucus fired off a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urging a stimulus of at least $1 trillion.
Now they find themselves in the mainstream, as they see the stimulus climbing toward a figure few expected to reach.
“We were figuring people would be talking about $300 billion to $400 billion,” said one participant. “Who knew we were going to be out-liberaled?”
The sheer size of the stimulus goes a long way toward explaining why there has been little liberal opposition to President-elect Obama’s decision to adopt the conservative Republican mantra of tax-cutting as part of his signature “recovery” legislation.
Rather than being carved out of a finite stimulus plan, the tax cuts have essentially been loaded on top of a package so big it has something for nearly everyone. Public works projects and job creation haven’t been displaced from the massive package, which Obama and Congress are hoping can shake the economy from its downward slump.
Read More >>> Here
Friday, January 2, 2009
Analysis: Republicans struggle with race issue
As minority voters abandoned the GOP in droves this past cycle, those who will vote on the next chairman of the Republican Party are struggling with the difficult issue of race.
The Democrats are seen as having advantages: Traditionally they have won more minority voters, and now the party will be led by the first African-American president. And, for Republicans, race proves to be a particularly thorny issue that can cause problems for even the most adept political operators.
The most recent example came when former Tennessee GOP chairman Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent a CD with a parody song called "Barack the Magic Negro" to RNC members. First reported by The Hill, the CD set off a wave of criticism and elicited sharp rebukes from several prominent voting members.
That incident came on top of a number of gaffes throughout the 2008 election. In September, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) told The Hill he thought then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was "uppity," a racially tinged word. Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ken.) apologized in April for referring to Obama as a "boy."
At rallies held for the Republican presidential ticket, media focused on attendees who called Obama a "terrorist" and emcees, most famously Cincinnati radio host Bill Cunningham, who frequently invoked Obama's middle name to rile up a crowd.
Finishing Reid Wilson's article >>> Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)