Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Shedding Light on DHS and CBP

Why I write this blog piece....http://www.onthemedia.org/story/shed-light-dhs/

NPR's weekly Media Show "On The Media" producer Sarah Abdurrahman, who yes is Muslim, wears a headscarf, is married to a Muslim and is an American citizen, tells her story of detention at the border coming into the US, on no suspicion, and without explaination.
producer Sarah Abdurrahman, her family, and her friends were detained for hours by US Customs and Border Protection on their way home from Canada. Everyone being held was a US citizen, and no one received an explanation. Sarah tells the story of their detainment, and her difficulty getting any answers from one of the least transparent agencies in the country.

Here is the initial detention story from September 2013 and here are some follow ups on getting answers from DHS and other agencies.

Bob Garfeild speaks with Lee Hamilton

Reporters talk about reporting on DHS and lack of transparency


I am writing this blog post to tell the story of Sarah's detention, and to write my own questions on the topic, to contribute to getting some answers from DHS and CBP and Congress.


These are the questions as supplied by On The Media through their tool

1. When constituents call your office with issues they are concerned about, what is the process for getting those concerns to the Congressman/Congresswoman and ultimately to Washington?

2. The Department of Homeland Security and its sub-agencies have been unwilling to go on the record with journalists about the policies for treatment of US citizens at US borders and while traveling domestically. Can you request those policies be made public and can you provide them to me?

3. Journalists and civil rights groups have reported mistreatment of US citizens by agents of the Department of Homeland Security and its sub-agencies at our borders and while traveling within the US. What are you, as a member of Congress, doing to ensure that agents on the ground are respecting the rights of US citizens?

4. Would you support a call for a public hearing with officials from the Department of Homeland Security to discuss the treatment of citizens at our borders and those traveling domestically, and to hold those officials accountable if the policies and practices of DHS and its sub-agencies violate the rights of US citizens?



My questions are
  • why is CBP stopping American Citizens at the border in the first place?? 

  • holding them in cold rooms like a mini Guantanamo Bay? 

  • not responding to American Citizen's questions even after they have been released?

  • more steps should be taken to prevent multiple searches like the story of Jane Doe---there should be a limit of searches when nothing is found











 Government resources on Border Patrol and Homeland Security

June 2012 Northern Border Fact Sheet

2011 US-Canada "Action Plan"  ---is this in effect??

2011 FAQ on US-Canada "Action Plan"

Examples of US-Canada shared law enforcement

Pre-Clearance options

Contact DHS

Online and Email for DHS

Border Security section of DHS

Civil Rights and Liberties at DHS

March 2013 GAO report on DHS Progress/Challenges in Securing US Borders

August 2013 GAO report on training Border Agents




News on Border and DHS

Nov 2013 HuffPo piece on Congressional pressure over killings by agents at Border


Border Patrol insists on secrecy for agents who kill people on Mexican side of border












Saturday, September 21, 2013

GOP hates Republicans, Republicans hate GOP



GOP votes to cut food stamps, used most by  red states, and Republicans don't like their own party

Congress is the one on ""welfare and food stamps""  (my blog piece) link here


Food Stamp Usage by percentage, February 2011, highest states in dark red, more than 20%
photo link




State unemployment in blue July 2012, Food Stamps in red June 2012
photo link






Republicans unhappy with their own party link here




The poll asked both self-described Democrats and Republicans — including "leaners" — if they think their own parties are taking things in the right or wrong direction. Democrats approved of their party's direction, with 72% saying leadership was taking the party in the right direction to just 21% who said it was taking things in the wrong direction.

But Republicans largely disapprove of their own party's leadership, as has been the case for quite some time now. Just 37% of self-identified Republicans and Republican "leaners" say leadership is taking the party in the right direction. Meanwhile, 52% say it's taking things in the wrong direction.

That's a big change from last August, when Republicans approved of their leadership by a 58-32 margin.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Video---Bachmann, King and Gohmert in Egypt



GUYS LEARN THE TRUTH PLEASE!!!! link


Speech from Michelle Bachmann, Steve King and Louis Gohmert

NY Times article here
Washington Post article here 

Wait your from the United States Congress, in the United States of America?? I would have never guessed that!!!


Nothing like deregulation to get an economy going am I right??

Or

Laws are bad for the economy!!

No we did not go through this together……shame on you for even implying that



NO!!! muslim brotherhood DID NOT attack us in 9/11 and no, there is no muslim brotherhood in US government!!!

(A clarification for those who are interested---Ayman Al-Zawahri is Egyptian, and he is a terrorist, he was part of the group that assassinated Anwar Al Sadat in 1981 for signing the peace treaty with Israel in 1979----he later formed Al Qaeda with Bin Laden who is Saudi Arabian, and 9/11 was attacking the US—Saudi alliance---15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and Mohamed Atta was Egyptian)

Ayman al-Zawahiri participated in Youth activism as a student. He became both quite pious and political, under the influence of his uncle Mahfouz Azzam, and lecturer Mostafa Kamel Wasfi.[18] Sayyid Qutb preached that to restore Islam and free Muslims, a vanguard of true Muslims modeling itself after the original Companions of the Prophet had to be developed.[19]
By the age of 14, al-Zawahiri had joined the Muslim Brotherhood. The following year the Egyptian government executed Qutb for conspiracy, and al-Zawahiri, along with four other secondary school students, helped form an "underground cell devoted to overthrowing the government and establishing an Islamist state." It was at this early age that al-Zawahiri developed a mission in life, "to put Qutb's vision into action."[20] His cell eventually merged with others to form al-Jihad or Egyptian Islamic Jihad.[14]


In 1998, al-Zawahiri formally merged the Egyptian Islamic Jihad into al-Qaeda. According to reports by a former al-Qaeda member, he has worked in the al-Qaeda organization since its inception and was a senior member of the group's shura council. He was often described as a "lieutenant" to Osama bin Laden, though bin Laden's chosen biographer has referred to him as the "real brains" of al-Qaeda.[48]
On February 23, 1998, al-Zawahiri issued a joint fatwa with Osama bin Laden under the title "World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders". Zawahiri, not bin Laden, is thought to have been the actual author of the fatwa.[51]



After coming to Hamburg in 1992, Atta became more religious, frequently attending the mosque.[33] Atta's friends in Germany described him as an intelligent man with religious beliefs, along with political motivations, including anger at U.S. policy toward the Middle East, particularly the Oslo Accords and the Gulf War.[34][35] Atta was also enraged by Egypt's ruling elite, and the Egyptian government's crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood members.   (BUT NOTE that it doesnt say Atta was ever member of Muslim Brotherhood)

The people Do NOT want military support from US!!!

Menace on the border?? Its internal to Egypt!!! Muslim brotherhood is not outside Egypt

3,000 Americans did not die, they were citizens of many countries not all Americans

I guess you guys aren’t the ones pressuring obama to call this a coup are you???

Muslim brotherhood are the oppressed!!! Its not the other guys taking their country back!!! THEY were in power for 80 years!!!

We stand for democracy!!! We don’t stand against muslim brotherhood!!! Only when Morsi acts like a dictator no better than Mubarak!!!

Numerous leaders = THE ARMY!!!

Yes Washington led a military----and then we gave military CIVILIAN CONTROL!!!

He was our first president he didn’t resign and go home!!!

No Thomas Paine was not a founder (well technically, he is listed as other founders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Other_founders)

No caliphate that’s Al Qaeda---Muslim Brotherhood is nationalist they want democracy to rule their own country

Muslim Brotherhood Ayman Noor ran in 2006 Muslim Brotherhood is NOT “”rammed through”” they’ve been political party for 80 years, banned and organizing underground

Yes I have a question “”how are you so dumb???””

Yes differences of opinions and some make up their own facts

 It was a coup!!! Yes it was supported by the people, but it was still a military takeover

A COUP IS a sudden, violent (or non-violent), and illegal seizure of power from a government.



Id love to know what the host is saying……. 

Friday, July 12, 2013

Egypt, Coup

Why Obama administration is reluctant to call a coup a coup---the Harkin Human Rights Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act


U.S. Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance: A Short History


In 1975, the Harkin Amendment (Section 116) was added to the Foreign
Assistance Act. The Harkin Amendment prohibits economic assistance to
any country that commits gross human rights violations unless it can be
shown that the aid will directly benefit the poor and needy. Section 116 of
the Foreign Assistance Act states:
No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of
any country which engages in consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention
without charges, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty,
and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit
the needy people in such country.

Page 59           COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS Legislation on Foreign Relations Through 2002

Sec. 116.75 Human Rights.—(a) No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or de-grading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons,76 or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.
(b) In determining whether this standard is being met with regard to funds allocated under this part, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate or the Committee on Foreign Affairs 77 of the House of Representatives may require the Administrator primarily responsible for administering part I of this Act to submit in writing information demonstrating that such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country, together with a de-tailed explanation of the assistance to be provided (including the dollar amounts of such assistance) and an explanation of how such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country. If either committee or either House of Congress disagrees with the Administrator’s justification it may initiate action to terminate assistance to any country by a concurrent resolution under section 617 of this Act.
(b) 78 No assistance may be provided to any government failing to take appropriate and adequate measures, within their means, to protect children from exploitation, abuse or forced conscription into military or paramilitary services.
(c) 79 In determining whether or not a government falls within the provisions of subsection (a) and in formulating development assistance programs under this part, the Administrator shall consider, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of State for De-
75 22 U.S.C. 2151n. Sec. 116 was added by sec. 310 of Public Law 94–161 (89 Stat. 849). See also in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002: sec. 534, relating to special authorities; and sec. 537, relating to eligibility for assistance.

mocracy, Human Rights, and Labor 80 and in consultation with the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom—81
(1) the extent of cooperation of such government in permit
ting an unimpeded investigation of alleged violations of inter-
nationally recognized human rights by appropriate inter-
national organizations, including the International Committee
of the Red Cross, or groups or persons acting under the author
ity of the United Nations or of the Organization of American
States; 82
(2) specific actions which have been taken by the President or the Congress relating to multilateral or security assistance to a less developed country because of the human rights practices or policies of such country; and 82
(3) 82 whether the government—
(A) has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe viola
tions of religious freedom, as defined in section 3 of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998; or
(B) has failed to undertake serious and sustained efforts
to combat particularly severe violations of religious free
dom (as defined in section 3 of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998), when such efforts could have been
reasonably undertaken.
(d) 79 The Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, by February 25 83 of each year, a full and complete report regarding—
(1) 84 the status of internationally recognized human rights,
within the meaning of subsection (a)—
(A) in countries that receive assistance under this part,
and
(B) in all other foreign countries which are members of
the United Nations and which are not otherwise the sub
ject of a human rights report under this Act;
(2) 85 wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control, including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization;
(3) 86 the status of child labor practices in each country, including—
(A) whether such country has adopted policies to protect
children from exploitation in the workplace, including a
prohibition of forced and bonded labor and policies regard
ing acceptable working conditions; and
(B) the extent to which each country enforces such poli
cies, including the adequacy of the resources and oversight
dedicated to such policies;
(4) 85, 86 the votes of each member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on all country-specific and thematic resolutions voted on at the Commission’s annual session during the period covered during the preceding year;
(5) 85 the extent to which each country has extended protection to refugees, including the provision of first asylum and re-settlement; 87
(6) 85, 87 the steps the Administrator has taken to alter United States programs under this part in any country because of human rights considerations;
(7) 86, 87 wherever applicable, violations of religious freedom, including particularly severe violations of religious freedom (as defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998);
(8) 87 wherever applicable, consolidated information regarding the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and evidence of acts that may constitute genocide (as defined in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and modified by the United States instrument of ratification to that convention and section 2(a) of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987);
(9) 88 for each country with respect to which the report indicates that extrajudicial killings, torture, or other serious violations of human rights have occurred in the country, the extent to which the United States has taken or will take action to en-courage an end to such practices in the country; and (10) 89 (A) wherever applicable, a description of the nature and extent)—
(i) of the compulsory recruitment and conscription of in
dividuals under the age of 18 by armed forces of the gov
ernment of the country, government-supported
paramilitaries, or other armed groups, and the participa
tion of such individuals in such groups; and
(ii) that such individuals take a direct part in hostilities; (B) what steps, if any, taken by the government of the country to eliminate such practices; and
(C) such other information related to the use by such govern
ment of individuals under the age of 18 as soldiers, as deter-
mined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
(e) 79, 90 The President is authorized and encouraged to use not less than $3,000,000 of the funds made available under this chapter, chapter 10 of this part,91 and chapter 4 of part II for each fiscal year for studies to identify, and for openly carrying out, pro-grams and activities which will encourage or promote increased adherence to civil and political rights, including the right to free religious belief and practice,92 as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in countries eligible for assistance under this chapter or under chapter 10 of this part, except that funds made available under chapter 10 of this part may only be used under this subsection with respect to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. None of these funds may be used, directly or indirectly, to influence the outcome of any election in any country.
(f) 93 (1) The report required by subsection (d) shall include the following:
(A) A description of the nature and extent of severe forms of
trafficking in persons, as defined in section 103 of the Traffick
ing Victims Protection Act of 2000, in each foreign country.
(B) With respect to each country that is a country of origin, transit, or destination for victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, an assessment of the efforts by the government of that country to combat such trafficking. The assessment shall address the following:
(i) Whether government authorities in that country participate in, facilitate, or condone such trafficking.
(ii) Which government authorities in that country are involved in activities to combat such trafficking.
(iii) What steps the government of that country has taken to prohibit government officials from participating in, facilitating, or condoning such trafficking, including the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of such officials.
(iv) What steps the government of that country has taken to prohibit other individuals from participating in such trafficking, including the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of individuals involved in severe forms of trafficking in persons, the criminal and civil penalties for such trafficking, and the efficacy of those penalties in eliminating or reducing such trafficking.
(v) What steps the government of that country has taken to assist victims of such trafficking, including efforts to prevent victims from being further victimized by traffickers, government officials, or others, grants of relief from deportation, and provision of humanitarian relief, including provision of mental and physical health care and shelter.
(vi) Whether the government of that country is cooperating with governments of other countries to extradite traffickers when requested, or, to the extent that such cooperation would be inconsistent with the laws of such country or with extradition treaties to which such country is a party, whether the government of that country is taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and treaties so as to permit such cooperation.
(vii) Whether the government of that country is assisting in international investigations of transnational trafficking networks and in other cooperative efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons.
(viii) Whether the government of that country refrains from prosecuting victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons due to such victims having been trafficked, and refrains from other discriminatory treatment of such victims.
(ix) Whether the government of that country recognizes
the rights of victims of severe forms of trafficking in per-
sons and ensures their access to justice.
(C) Such other information relating to trafficking in persons
as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) In compiling data and making assessments for the purposes of paragraph (1), United States diplomatic mission personnel shall consult with human rights organizations and other appropriate nongovernmental organizations.



Sen. Harkin: A Champion of Strengthening American Values | ACS

by U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Pratt, Southern District of Iowa
   
While a first term member of the United States House of Representatives in 1975 he secured passage of the Harkin amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act which established that foreign states that engaged in a pattern of gross and consistent human rights violations were not eligible for certain forms of assistance from the United States.  This legislation also gave the United States Trade Representative discretion to deny “most favored nations” treatment to countries that abused the rights of workers and unions.  Through his recognition of the plight of child chocolate workers in Africa and child workers in other industries all over the world, he has managed to get both government and private industry involved in eliminating the worst abuses of child labor. Harkin’s work on the Senate Appropriations Committee has resulted in increased funding for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (IAB). The IAB is in the front line in the fight against child labor, forced labor and human trafficking.  

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172605/what-we-will-lose-when-tom-harkin-leaves-senate#

What We Will Lose When Tom Harkin Leaves the Senate
  
Harkin’s first big fight on Capitol Hill, as a young congressman from a competitive district representing rural Iowa, was to demand that the entire thrust of US foreign policy be altered.

As a young congressional aide in 1970, Harkin had played a critical role in exposing South Vietnam’s abusive treatment of prisoners, who were held in so-called “tiger cages.” Horrified by mounting evidence of US support for right-wing coups, murderous dictators and torture states in southern Asia and Latin America, Harkin in 1975 proposed an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act that prohibited the United States from providing economic aid to any country determined to be engaged gross human rights violations unless. The only exception was a provision that permitted allocation of US funds if could be proved that the money who directly benefit the most impoverished citizens.

The amendment, which passed with relative ease, became Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act, which declared: “No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.”

Presidents and their congressional allies invariably circumvented human rights responsibilities, to Harkin’s great frustration. As a new US senator in the mid-1980s, he joined another new senator, John Kerry of Massachusetts, in seeking to expose and end the Reagan administration’s support for right-wing dictators and death squads in Latin America. Others softened in their stances, but not Harkin. When Bush nominated Negroponte for the Iraqi ambassadorship, the senator from Iowa took to the floor of the chamber and recounted the dark history of the nominee’s “service” as Ronald Reagan’s administration gave lawless support to death squads and paramilitary murderers. Harkin accused the nominee of lying to Congress and the American people about circumstances on the ground in Honduras in the early 1980s—where 184 people, including an American priest, “disappeared” while Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Congress is the one on ""welfare""

Congress is the one with “”extraordinary govt benefits paid for by taxpayer dollars””
yes they do a vital service of legislation---but there is a lot of wasted taxpayer money there as well


Martin Gross on Government Waste
Top 10

I've got This Version from 1992
The Govt Racket--Waste from A to Z

Govt Racket--Waste from A to Z, from 2000 and beyond

Article on Gross' works

Book review  larger version

Obituary Martin Gross

CSPAN video interview Clip

CSPAN FULL INTERVIEW




Base Congressional Salary since 1789 link here
2008 -- $169,300 per annum
2009 -- $174,000 per annum   
2010 -- $174,000 per annum
2011 -- $174,000 per annum
2012 -- $174,000 per annum
2013 -- $174,000 per annum

Note: Since the early 1980s, Senate leaders -- majority and minority leaders, and the president pro tempore -- have received higher salaries than other members. Currently, leaders earn $193,400 per year.


In September 2009, Obama cut the FY 2010 pay increases scheduled for most federal government employees from as much as 18.9 percent to no more than 2.0 percent. In addition, the salaries of all senior White House officials have been frozen since President Obama took office in 2009.  link here


California Rep Jackie Spier Video link

From article 5 Things The House GOP Should Cut Instead Of Food Stamps link

Food Stamps and GOP  (my blog piece)    link here

Travel expenses link here
...new gift reports show members of Congress were adept at taking advantage of last month’s summer recess and receiving almost $1.7 million in free trips during the month of August.

During a paid month long summer recess, members of Congress reported receiving $1,668,928 in gifts of free travel, the largest monthly total since August 2011. The gifts covered the expenses of 130 trips by members during August. For the year, members of Congress have received $3,346,611 in free travel paid by outside organizations.



FROM   link here
Personnel Allowance Component of the MRA
The Statement of Disbursements of the House also provides the formula that was used for
determining each Member’s MRA. In the 2010 formula, the personnel allowance component of this calculation was $944,671 for each Member.14

The Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA)
The Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA) is available to support Representatives in their official and representational duties. The MRA may be used for official expenses including, for example, staff, travel, mail, office equipment, district office rental, stationery, and other office supplies.

The 2012 allowances range from $1,270,129 to $1,564,613, with an average of $1,353,205.13

***BASE ALLOWANCE IS MORE THAN THEIR SALARY!!!!
The base allowance in the formula established in 2010 is $256,574.17
***salary is $175,000

Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA)
The SOPOEA is funded within the “Contingent Expenses of the Senate,” account in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. The average allowance is $3,209,103.26

Sequester finally attacks Senate barbershopof officially the Senate Hair Care Services unit
“”government-subsidized haircuts for senators and their staff.””

“”Senators used to get free haircuts. But that stopped in 1979, when public pressure over wasteful government spending led the shop to impose a $3.50 fee. But even today, the shop’s full menu of unisex salon services are still far less expensive than many hair establishments around Washington. A basic trim is $20 plus tip, a manicure is $18 and eyebrow trimming runs $15.””

Before 1984 Congress did not pay into (or receive) Social Security
Report on Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress November 30, 2012


FEHBP (Congressional Healthcare)

Congressional HealthCare Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)
CRS report

There are 230 different health plans available in FEHBP for the 2013 plan year.
Out of the 230 plans available through FEHBP, an enrollee’s choice is typically limited to 10 to
15 different plans, depending on where the individual resides

All FEHBP plans cover a range of benefits, including hospital, surgical, physician, mental health,
prescription drug, catastrophic, and emergency care. There are variations in the amount the plans
pay for each benefit, the coverage of specific services, and the extent to which they protect
enrollees from the risk of catastrophic medical bills.

The federal government and enrollees share the cost of the premiums for FEHBP plans. The 
government’s contribution to premiums is set at 72% of the weighted average premium of all 
plans in the program, not to exceed 75% of any given plan’s premium.
The percentage of premiums paid by the government is calculated separately for individual and family coverage, but each uses the same formula. Annuitants and active employees pay the same premium amounts, although active employees have the option of paying premiums on a pre-tax basis. 


             Govt Pays         Employee Pays        Total Premium
Self         $184.06               $80.74                     $264.80

Family    $410.92               $178.24                    $589.16


As FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the United States, it is 
difficult to compare FEHBP to health benefits offered by other employers. Any comparison must 
be limited to large employers in the private sector and state and local governments.

large firms with more than 200 employees, 55% offered one plan, 37% offered two plans, and 8% offered three or more plans. For firms with more than 5,000 employees, a subset of the aforementioned group of large firms, 26% offered one plan, 49% offered two plans, and 25% offered three or more plans.

large firms, on average employers paid 82% of the premium for single plans and 75% of the premium for family plans for current employees

state and local government employers of all sizes, on average employers paid 88% of the
premium for single coverage and 76% of the premium for family coverage for current
employees.

Dental and vision benefits are available to active federal employees and annuitants through the
Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program.  Enrollees are responsible for 100% of the premiums. To continue or obtain FEDVIP coverage in retirement, an employee does not have to participate in FEDVIP prior to retirement.

The [Affordable Care Act, Obamacare] exchanges will not be insurers, but will provide a marketplace for eligible individuals and small businesses to purchase private health insurance plans. For more information on the exchanges, see CRS Report R42663, Health Insurance Exchanges Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), by Bernadette Fernandez and Annie L. Mach.


So Darrel Issa has been tweeting ""Replace Obamacare with FEHBP"" BUT in fact Obamacare will be replacing FEHBP---so why is he pushing a program that's ending???
My Blog Post Here

















Friday, June 14, 2013

Filibuster Reform


WE NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE YES OR NO

We need to break the “”60 Vote”” rule to bring bills to an up or down vote---if you disagree with the bill---then vote no ON THE BILL---DO NOT stop the debate!!!

***Bills that GOP would not allow up or down vote on (BY THE WAY I THOUGHT GOP AGENDA WAS “”JOBS JOBS JOBS””)

From Tom Harkin “”In the last two Congresses, consider just some of the measures blocked by the minority – measures that received majority support on a cloture vote:

the DREAM ACT,

the Bring Jobs Home Act,

the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act,

the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012,

the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act,

the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act,

the American Jobs Act of 2011,

the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act,

the Paycheck Fairness Act, and

the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act.

Senator Tom Harkin on Filibuster Reform (picture from Filibuster Statement)


Senator Tom Harkin interview on Filibuster Reform

Senator Tom Harkin on Filibuster

Senator Tom Harkin Statement on Filibuster Reform
http://www.harkin.senate.gov/press/release.cfm?i=339395

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r104:./temp/~r104HJHPZN


[FROM QUAD-CITY TIMES, NOV. 22, 1994]

Harkin Keeps His Promise

Two months ago, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa expressed dismay at the way Republicans had repeatedly blocked legislation that was supported by a majority of the Senate.



ARTICLES AND INFO ON FILIBUSTER

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Cloture invoked  (de facto filibuster---need 60 to procede)
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-filibuster-reform-but-were-afraid-to-ask/265703/

http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=25f59865-abbd-4aa9-80aa-c6ce36e08ad7

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

http://www.nolabels.org/understanding-filibuster

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

Senator Robert Byrd on Filibuster in 2010
http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b62c87fe-d03d-44c3-a341-06c1390c4294

what the senate did in January 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42996.pdf

JULY 2013 OBAMA NOMINATION FILIBUSTER FIGHT
Confirm Tom Perez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEN3IEhtvUw

Harkin Speech Text
http://www.harkin.senate.gov/press/release.cfm?i=345332

Video of Harkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iekqC1Yz1x8





Thursday, March 14, 2013

About Michelle Bachmann


Im writing now about Michelle Bachmann---who said some good things in 2012 when she ran in the GOP primary---but I’m looking for the hypocrisy as I normally do

I agree that the 47% remarks says that some people pay no tax and yes I agree that is wrong---so I’m glad she said everyone should pay something---my tax plan starts at either 1% or $100 etc---something rather than nothing…..

On the “”gotcha question”” about her FHA mortgage---she said “”that just proves Govt is too big””  so yes govt backs about ½ of all mortgages through FHA and Fannie and Freddie

But 2 things stand out in her attack on govt besides the obvious that SHE is a govt employee with taxpayer paid salary, Free universal healthcare, and taxpayer expenses same as every member of Congress and govt.

One is her role as a foster mother----honorable yes but also why not adoption instead??? One is that fostering is temporary AND-----fosters get govt subsidies that adopting doesn’t get---so was her choice about making money as well as helping kids???


the second issue is her husband who is a doctor----does he take Medicaid and medicare patients??? Because that would be taking GOVT MONEY which is bad right????

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Reagan was WISE if only GOP would listen

I recently watched Dinesh D'souza's Obama 2016 movie--i'll have more on that later--but just a few points here

the premise is that Obama is anti-colonialist and wants to disarm America of nuclear weapons and let other countries keep their nuclear arms--like Iran for example


But Dinesh WORKED in the Reagan White House--so i got some ideas from Reagan


Also---is Dinesh saying that anti colonialism is un-American?? does he know American history, especially around 1776?? and Dinesh is Indian from India, a country that gained independence from Britain in 1947--so I'm not sure why being anti colonialist as he claims Obama is----is a bad thing.


Reagan Speech with thoughts on nuclear weapons, war, economy and spending, etc
bold is my comments 
President Reagan Commencement Address Eureka College Illinois May 9 1982

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/50982a.htm 


Reagan here makes some points that today's GOP needs to hear as well

Reagan says 
""The Soviet Union must make the difficult choices brought on by its military budgets and economic shortcomings.""

Reagan says 

But in the midst of social and economic problems, the Soviet dictatorship has forged the largest armed force in the world. It has done so by preempting the human needs of its people, and, in the end, this course will undermine the foundations of the Soviet system. Harry Truman was right when he said of the Soviets that, ``When you try to conquer other people or extend yourself over vast areas you cannot win in the long run.''

This is a great quote for our current gun laws debate with the NRA and everyone who wants a gun for self defense (and American foreign policy, especially August--September 2013 Syria debate)

""Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.""
(My version is ""war is diplomacy by force""   Amy Goodman  said ""war ends in diplomacy, so start there instead"")


Reagan makes some great points here

""talk to your enemies, arms reduction, economic stability"" 

Reagan says 

""I believe such a policy consists of five points: military balance, economic security, regional stability, arms reductions, and dialog. Now, these are the means by which we can seek peace with the Soviet Union in the years ahead.''"

The fourth point is arms reduction.  REAGAN AND OBAMA ARE NOT ANTI COLONIALIST WHILE LOOKING FOR NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTIONS OF OURSELVES OUR ALLIES AND OUR ENEMIES---THEY ARE SEEKING AN END TO THE ARMS RACE AND PEACE


Reagan says 

""I wish more than anything there were a simple policy that would eliminate that nuclear danger. But there are only difficult policy choices through which we can achieve a stable nuclear balance at the lowest possible level.
I do not doubt that the Soviet people, and, yes, the Soviet leaders have an overriding interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union within the memory of its leaders has known the devastation of total conventional war and knows that nuclear war would be even more calamitous. And yet, so far, the Soviet Union has used arms control negotiations primarily as an instrument to restrict U.S. defense programs and, in conjunction with their own arms buildup, a means to enhance Soviet power and prestige.
Unfortunately, for some time suspicions have grown that the Soviet Union has not been living up to its obligations under existing arms control treaties. There is conclusive evidence the Soviet Union has provided toxins to the Laotians and Vietnamese for use against defenseless villagers in Southeast Asia. And the Soviets themselves are employing chemical weapons on the freedom-fighters in Afghanistan.

We must establish firm criteria for arms control in the 1980's if we're to secure genuine and lasting restraint on Soviet military programs throughout arms control. We must seek agreements which are verifiable, equitable, and militarily significant. Agreements that provide only the appearance of arms control breed dangerous illusions.

Last November, I committed the United States to seek significant reductions on nuclear and conventional forces. In Geneva, we have since proposed limits on U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles, including the complete elimination of the most threatening systems on both sides. In Vienna, we're negotiating, together with our allies, for reductions of conventional forces in Europe. In the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament, the United Nations [United States] seeks a total ban on all chemical weapons.
Since the first days of my administration, we're been working on our approach to the crucial issue of strategic arms and the control and negotiations for control of those arms with the Soviet Union. The study and analysis required has been complex and difficult. It had to be undertaken deliberately, thoroughly, and correctly. We've laid a solid basis for these negotiations. We're consulting with congressional leaders and with our allies, and we are now ready to proceed.
The main threat to peace posed by nuclear weapons today is the growing instability of the nuclear balance. This is due to the increasingly destructive potential of the massive Soviet buildup in its ballistic missile force.
Therefore, our goal is to enhance deterrence and achieve stability through significant reductions in the most destabilizing nuclear systems, ballistic missiles, and especially the giant intercontinental ballistic missiles, while maintaining a nuclear capability sufficient to deter conflict, to underwrite our national security, and to meet our commitment to allies and friends.
For the immediate future, I'm asking my START -- and START really means -- we've given up on SALT -- START means ``Strategic Arms Reduction Talks,'' and that negotiating team to propose to their Soviet counterparts a practical, phased reduction plan. The focus of our efforts will be to reduce significantly the most destabilizing systems, the ballistic missiles, the number of warheads they carry, and their overall destructive potential.
At the first phase, or the end of the first phase of START, I expect ballistic missile warheads, the most serious threat we face, to be reduced to equal levels, equal ceilings, at least a third below the current levels. To enhance stability, I would ask that no more than half of those warheads be land-based. I hope that these warhead reductions, as well as significant reductions in missiles themselves, could be achieved as rapidly as possible.
In a second phase, we'll seek to achieve an equal ceiling on other elements of our strategic nuclear forces, including limits on the ballistic missile throw-weight at less than current American levels. In both phases, we shall insist on verification procedures to ensure compliance with the agreement.
This, I might say, will be the twentieth time that we have sought such negotiations with the Soviet Union since World War II. The monumental task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability will take many years of concentrated effort. But I believe that it will be possible to reduce the risks of war by removing the instabilities that now exist and by dismantling the nuclear menace.""""

REAGAN AND OBAMA WANT STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTIONS AND ECONOMIC STABILITY--REAGAN INCREASED THE DEBT AND SO DID OBAMA--BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS BUT NEITHER WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA

Some thoughts on the Constitution


LOOKING AT THE CONSTITUTION you find the basic laws establishing a Congress and President etc. and what you also find is what is missing that we now know of--how to deal with treaties, the nature of the presidential cabinet and other terms that were worked out by President Washington and the early Congresses--but what i do find is fascinating in light of today's liberals and conservatives--and no i am not a scholar and it is open to interpretation. The Preamble--We the people--that everyone knows--talks about what we want to set up in this country--We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do order and establish the constitution...

so the general welfare should be promoted--so the GOP argues against food stamps because it takes away freedom?? ok not sure on that--also in the Declaration of Independance we find that God has given us Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness--and in order to secure these rights we establish government of the people by the people----SO AGAIN GOP SMALL GOVT BAFFLES ME AS WELL AS LACK OF SOCIAL SAFETY NET IN THEIR AGENDAS

Section 8 of the Constitution--states that Congress shall lay and collect taxes to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States and TO BORROW MONEY on the credit of the united states (MAYBE IF THE FOUNDERS SAID DEBT CEILING WE'D BE OK NOW)

AGAIN NOT SURE WHY GOP IS AGAINST TAXES OR SOCIAL SAFETY NET-----THESE WERE PUT IN BY PEOPLE SETTING UP THEIR OWN GOVT-----NO ISSUE OF FREEDOM GRABBING HERE

AH THIS IS FUN---to promote the PROGRESS OF SCIENCE and USEFUL ARTS---- its says with patents (LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS) but still come on Climate Change???

To raise and support armies but no longer for two years----maybe that means at a time---every two years need to approve more spending??? im not sure


Again i am not a scholar these are just some thoughts i found interesting in re reading the constitution and Declaration of Independence

GOP and taxes


Why are the GOP against taxes?? They will say that higher taxes hurt our economy or that it will kill jobs or that govt spends too much money. In reality it is simply their world view---Govt is bad and taxes are how we fund it---lower taxes and you will make govt smaller. Grover Norquist seems to be the only person who will even admit that this is the ultimate goal anymore---he used to say make govt small enough to drown in a bathtub---now he just says cut it in half---but at least smaller govt is his stated goal---even though he will also say it hurts the economy, it kills jobs, stimulus doesnt work---he uses an image of a lake--someone stands on one end with a bucket and takes some water and puts it in the other end and says ""stimulus""---but the REAL analogy would be a river feeding that lake or even how every river ends in the ocean---its funny how stimulus REALLY works----every river ends up in the ocean.

The GOP used to be the fiscally responsible party---they would spend less and raise taxes when more spending was needed, and were upset when Democrats would lower taxes, saying it would cause deficits and debt----imagine that huh!!!! I would say this desire to kill the govt was treasonous---it certainly seemed so to me--but it doesnt fit the actual definition (i looked it up) of ""killing the sovereign leader or overthrowing the govt"" well its good news for the GOP.

So my question to them would be---why pay any taxes at all?? why should the rich only get a 20% tax cut for the last ten years (and another 20% if Romney was elected)---why not 40 50 or 90%??? why should the rich pay any taxes??? then again why should any of us?? My assumed answer is that well that would be ridiculous and the govt has some role Borders, Military etc and we need to fund something. So its back to GOP wants smaller govt and Dems believe govt has a role to play in our lives and the more you make the more you should pay. Maybe one day we could agree on something.