Posted By: Great news imo! (see msg) kam on 2007-09-28 In Reply to:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Senate gave final approval on Thursday to a health insurance bill for 10 million children, clearing the measure for President Bush, who said he would veto it.
The 67-29 vote followed a series of speeches by Republican senators supporting the bill and urging Mr. Bush to reconsider his veto threat.
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, one of 18 Republicans who voted for the bill, said the White House had shown “little if any willingness to come to the negotiating table.”
Republican opponents of the bill, like Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas, said it would be a big step toward socialized medicine, would shift people from private insurance to a public program and would allow coverage for illegal immigrants and children in high-income families.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said it was “intellectually dishonest” to make such “outlandish accusations.”
Mr. Bush has said the bill would move toward “government-run health care for every American.”
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said those fears were unfounded.
“What will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care,” Mr. Corker said.
The bill would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover nearly four million uninsured children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. It would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than the current spending and $30 billion more than the president proposed.
Mr. Bush has not shown a willingness to compromise. But he may come under pressure so from Republican lawmakers who do not like being portrayed as hostile to children’s interests.
Democrats have selected Graeme Frost, 12, of Baltimore, to deliver their Saturday radio address. He will appeal to the president to sign the bill.
On Monday, the Service Employees International Union will rally outside the White House, and children will deliver petitions urging approval of the bill.
The child health program was born in 1997 from collaboration between Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
On Thursday, Mr. Hatch said that “it pains me” that Mr. Bush has not worked with Congress to renew the program. Some people in the administration “have been slow to recognize the realities of the new Congress,” where Democrats have a majority, Mr. Hatch said.
The bill has support from AARP, the big lobby for older Americans; the American Medical Association; America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for insurers; and governors from both parties.
In the House, the bill was approved on Tuesday, 265 to 159, with support from 45 Republicans. The House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said he was confident that the veto would be upheld. A two-thirds majority in both chambers would be needed to override the veto.
The bill would increase tobacco taxes, with the levy on cigarettes increasing to $1 a pack from the current 39 cents. It would require states to cover dental services for children and would increase coverage of mental health services in many states.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said: “Our Democratic colleagues have taken Schip hostage, and what they want in exchange is Republican support for government-run health care., courtesy of Washington .”
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Bush should be grateful for this (even though he will probably ignore it, as usual), as the day may come when HE faces charges as a war criminal, and he would demand and be entitled to the same due process under the law.
Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill
09/14/2006 @ 3:41 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today by passing its own terrorism tribunal bill to protect the rights of terror detainees.
Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court, reports Bloomberg News.
The four Republicans acted against the White House today only a few hours after the president paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill in order to personally lobby House members to support his plan.
President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects, reported the Associated Press earlier today.
Bush told reporters later at the White House that he would resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.
The bill passed by the Senate panel had been drafted by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, and Chairman John Warner. Senator Susan M. Collins was the fourth Republican to vote for the bill.
Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners, reports Reuters.
Earlier today, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Republican Senator John McCain (video link), supporting his opposition to the president's plan which would redefine the legal definitions in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
REPUBLICANS
John Warner (Virginia) Chairman
John McCain (Arizona) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Pat Roberts (Kansas) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) John Ensign (Nevada) James M. Talent (Missouri) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota)
DEMOCRATS
Carl Levin (Michigan) Ranking Member
Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) Bill Nelson (Florida) E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Dayton (Minnesota) Evan Bayh (Indiana) Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Hint.....children.....30-year-old children...those children that should have their own jobs and their own health insurance.
You keep saying I don't want affordable health care for children...
I have said the opposite. What I don't want is expansion of a program that is already NOT working. WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT WILLING TO WAIT SIX MONTHS FOR A BETTER PROGRAM? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW?? See, we could yell at each other over this from now on, and never agree. I would like the waste to stop. Yes, I would. I would like to see Social Security fixed. Yes I would. The war in Iraq is going on, and until our troops are home, I don't want funding pulled from there, that is right, I don't. I would like for goverment to be in my pocket less, yes. I would like to see a push toward individual responsibility again, yes I would. I don't think the government should provide health care for adults, and yes, it scares me to make the government responsible for kids health care. Look how they managed Medicare...Medicaid...good grief!! Why not try to get this program RIGHT? Why just throw more money at the waste? Basically what you are talking about is socialism, and that is more scary to me than anything else we have discussed here. And, frankly, as far as common sense goes...I think you are not thinking in the long run of where government run health care leads. It leads to lines, it leads to substandard care...I hate to say it, but look at the VA system. Tell me THAT government-run health care is working?? We know it DOESN'T. Veterans have to wait very, very long lengths of time for care, for appointments...what makes you think government run health care for children would be any better?? It is better to leave it in the private sector where there is competition and the care is better? Let's reward responsibility and give those $80K families tax relief. Make it mandatory for parents to cover their kids like it is mandatory that they ride in car seats and wear seat belts. Let's reward responsibility and keep level of care where it is. Please, please let's not go down the socialized medicine road just to get free health care....I honestly, as God is my witness, do not think it will benefit kids in the long run if they are all in some kind of government health plan.
As to Bush, I could care less what the headlines are. All I am saying is that the Dems in Congress are using this as an election sound bite and the Republicans who voted with them are doing the same. Misguided, all of them, in my opinion. While I do not agree with Bush on a multitude of things, I do agree with him on keeping health care in the private sector and the government OUT of it.
health plan
I have an idea, why doesnt Bush stop waging immoral wars and use our tax dollars for something constructive and life saving, like health coverage for those who die each year without it? You know why I would love a universal health plan? Because I care about my brother and sister and I care about making every Americans life better. Of course, you conservatives care about no one but yourselves. You make a few bucks, buy a home in a gated community, take the other streets so you dont pass the ghetto..and yet you claim you are christian..that is the most hypocritical statement of all. Do you not realize if Jesus walked this earth today, he would be a liberal democrat, helping the poor, the starving, the sick, the homeless, accepting all. Im so glad Im a liberal democrat. I dont think I could look at myself in the mirror or get a good nights sleep knowing my ideology is actually harming America, not helping it one bit.
He did it again..Children's health care bill vetoed a second time
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health-care program for a second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.
Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.
Bush vetoed an earlier version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House concerns.
"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.
The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen this year.
Bush has said the funding level sought by the Democrats for the health program would have expanded it beyond its original intent of covering poor children and marked a step toward government-run health care.
Democrats say the additional money is needed to help families who cannot afford to buy private health insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor.
"This is indeed a sad action for him to take, because so many children in our country need access to quality health care," House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters.
The bill would have provided $60 billion in funding for the children's health program over five years, compared with the current $25 billion five-year funding level.
The tobacco tax increase would raise the levy on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack.
House Democratic leaders said they will not try to override the veto right away and would vote on a bill to ensure the more than six million kids now in the program can stay enrolled.
(Editing by Todd Eastham)
(Additional reporting by Donna Smith and Richard Cowan)
Figure something out that doesnt make lobbyists and CEOs of ins. co. filthy rich.
Sound unreasonable? If so, and you think everyth8ing is just ~fine~ you should seek some help for the sake of your country.
Canada's health plan does not work...
that is why people with critical illnesses cross the border to come HERE for treatment. Taxes have gone up dramatically trying to pay for the rising costs. You will pay it in deductibles or pay it in taxes...but you will pay it in a national health care system.
McCain has already enunciated his plan to take care of the "golden parachute" crowd. It is a good plan. He has a plan in place to handle earmarking and lobbying. Saying as President "I will veto those bills and name those who seek to add pork and you will know their names." Good for him!! And he means EITHER party. He puts his country first and wants to make government like it is supposed to be...to serve WE, the people. Yet another reason I am voting McCain. Country First is not just a slogan.
The health care plan cost so far
is about $1 Trillion, and yes, it will be covered by taxes again. I don't think it's 4 pages, either. It's more like another 1000 pages. I made a note to look it up, but can't today.
Obama's whopper on McCains' Health Plan
I see again that everyone is talking about President Obama's plan for universal health care and I once again feel the need to distinguish between universal health care and what the plan is that President Obama has campaigned for. I have copied and pasted part of the web page, but also included the link at the bottom of this for you to see the whole plan.
President Obama does not ask for universal health care where the government is in charge - he just wants the government to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and health insurance. Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not socialized medicine, government run healthcare, or universal coverage plans?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.
If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.
I figure either one of two things will happen. Either the US will go to a single payer system, i.e., national health care covering all through federal taxes and cost control by the government, or therre will be an implosion of the private system in x number of years with something different emerging from the ashes.
With the exhorbitant cost of health insurance, mandating coverage is not an answer. Anything can be mandated. The question is how does one pay for it?Massachusetts mandated individual coverage, and already has had to exclude 20% due to the cost of a policy, anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a month for family coverage. Employers cannot afford to cover employees either due to the cost of health insurance. The current system? Well, insurance companies can charge $3,000 a month for a health insurance policy, health care providers can charge $800,000 for a 3-day hospital stay, etc. In the end no one, businesses or otherwise, will be able to keep "feeding the beast" and the current system will implode.
I think the proposal of being able to buy into Medicare is a noble one, but president Clinton pushed that years ago, and with much opposition and to no avail at that time.
I don't mean to sound so pessiimistic. Actually I'm not. There are 300 million people in this country, they have the ability to change anything, and hopefully they will take the initial steps to do that in November.
Oh please:) The only thing the MSM media passes on...
...and has for six years is the blatant incompetence and fascist strongarm tactics of this admin. and its Hoover/Hitler protege Rove. He has pundits and talking heads and newspeople all over America in a suffocating death grip - they don't dare make a peep about anything but the NeoCon talking points handed out by Karl each day.
The reason you're hearing so much about DeLay in a bad light right now is because the WH doesn't much like him by all accounts, so it's open season on the lap dog, so long as the newscasters don't step off the white line and start insulting the WH itself.
No, we don't give passes on things like this. nm
Since we don't know what it going to be like (your words, not mine) under O, one can only speculate. Knock yourself out on that one. I'm not into that. Bush, however, has had his debut, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th acts. The curtain is coming down and we have concrete evidence on which to base our individual takes on his regime. There is reliable data available (approval ratings, whose better off now than in 2000, the state of our economy, our standing in the world, etc) which suggests that for many of us, W has managed to single-handedly turn our country into something we can barely recognize. The hatchet job he and his buddies did early on with the Constitution is all the evidence I need to feel justified in my absolute contempt for the man and his legacy, not to mention the fact that pretty much nothing he has done has even begun to address the problems we face with terrorism on the international front and the economy, health care, the environment, etc on the home front. The decider to some, the destroyer to others.
Fair Pay Act passes in House
Bet SP and Coulter have their drawers in an uproar of this one.
House passes Obama
The stimulus package passed by a vote of 244-188. Eleven Democrats voted against the measure, while no Republicans supported it.
Maine Passes Gay Marriage Law
AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.
“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”
“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said.
“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”
but she should move the ethics investigation to Harry Reid next:
REID'S LAST KNOWN NATIONAL MEDIA APPEARANCE: October 18th Trying To Explain His Ethical Issues. Sen. Reid: I bought a piece of land, sold it six years later. Everything was reported. It was all transparent. (CNN's Newsroom, 10/18/06)
[H]arry Reid Has Been Using Campaign Donations Instead Of His Personal Money To Pay Christmas Bonuses For The Support Staff At The Ritz-Carlton ... Federal Election Law Bars Candidates From Converting Political Donations For Personal Use.(John Solomon, Reid Used Campaign Money For Christmas Bonuses At Personal Condo, The Associated Press, 10/16/06)
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Collected A $1.1 Million Windfall On A Las Vegas Land Sale Even Though He Hadn't Personally Owned The Property For Three Years ...(John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years, The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
Harry Reid, The Senate's Top Democrat, Makes Frequent Trips To His HomeState Of Nevada. Over The Past Four Years, His Bills At Caesars Palace, Mandalay Bay And Other Las Vegas Establishments Have Totaled More Than $125,000 ... (Brody Mullins, Lawmakers Tap PAC Money To Pay Wide Array Of Bills, The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/06)
That would also be a good place to start.
The climate bill passes to the floor.
217-205 votes. God help us all if this passes. I'm so p!ssed right now I could literally scream. Obama is a joke of a president and I can't wait until I can vote against him again. God only knows what will be left of our country by that time though. And spare me the Kool-aid democratic rhetoric and the blame Bush tactics. This is Obama's administration doing this horrible crap that will cause more jobs loss and higher costs for all when a lot of us are already struggling to make ends meet. Obama is literally kicking us while we are down and all he can do is smile and be the big celeb while throwing parties, etc. Obama is a failure and he is taking this country down with him. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
Immediate Release
The Interfaith Alliance
September 22, 2005
Contact: Jon Niven or Don Parker 202.639.6370
House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
Washington, September 22 – Today, The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment and a bill to allow government-funded religious discrimination
The School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Head Start program, was passed 48-0 in committee. However, during floor debate Thursday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) added an amendment allowing Head Start providers to exercise religious discrimination in choosing teachers and volunteers. As a result, the final vote on the bill (231-184) was stripped of the unanimous, bipartisan support displayed in committee.
The Interfaith Alliance is very disappointed in the members of Congress who insist on reacting to one crisis by beginning another one, said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance. The Boustany amendment is a prime example of political opportunists taking advantage of a national tragedy to institute policies that are unconstitutional and have been previously rejected by the Congress.
The Interfaith Alliance was joined by more than 50 organizations in opposition to the bill's passage if it contained the Boustany amendment. The National Head Start Association, which represents more than 2.5 million children and families, program staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early Head Start community, came out against the entire bill if the Boustany Amendment was attached saying:
In spite of its positive provisions, if HR 2123 contains a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly oppose the bill.
This amendment will subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars, turning back civil rights protections that currently apply to nearly 200,000 Head Start teachers and over 1.4 million parent volunteers.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the levees protecting religious liberty are being breached, and the wall between church and state is cracking, Gaddy said. If those in Congress who seek to repeal religious liberty safeguards are successful, thousands of children, teachers and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this program could find themselves no longer welcome at religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.
The Senate passed a similar bill, but without the Boustany amendment, so the House version will now go to a House-Senate conference committee. Members of The Interfaith Alliance will urge Senators to strip the bill of the Boustany amendment in conference.
Initiated in 1965 in the wake of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Head Start has been widely recognized as one of the most successful government programs ever created. It has provided early childhood education and development programs that have helped millions of low-income families overcome inequities for more than forty years.
no courage in the Senate
They all voted for it. Democrats and Republicans. Let's all come together and get rid of these guys. Lets vote for Nader. At least he has some integrity
senate bill
this is all way over my head... anyone make any sense of it who is willing to share?
I thought senate seats belonged to the state that person resided in. And I thought the people who fill the seats are picked by the people of their states in a vote. These DC people are acting as though their seats are to be handed down to their family members as though they are Royalty. Last I knew I didn't think we lived in a Monarchy, but now I'm beginning to wonder. Bill Clinton is now "suggesting" Hillary's old seat should go to Chelsea Clinton? Impeached Bill should have no say in who the senate seat goes to. The Clintons don't want Caroline Kennedy to fill it because Caroline backed Obama. This is rediculous. They think they are entitled to these positions. My feeling is that the senate seat should be filled with someone who is qualified from that state. Not family members of family members of family members. Caroline Kennedy should run for the seat when the time to run comes up. Not be placed there because her name is Kennedy. As for Chelsea? Talk about someone with NO skills or qualifications to fill the position. She has worked for a manager at some Hedge fund company. She is a total id!ot. Just because daddy was the Prez and mommy held the senate position, does not mean that Chelsea is qualified. And certainly just because she attended a lot of mommy's fund raising events doesn't mean she's qualified. Blimey, why not let Obama's daughter take his old senate seat.
I heard someone describe our government as an aristocracy. There are so many people who are qualified for the positions, but they will never get appointed because they are not rich or don't have the "name' or in the club. I also heard that someone is sitting in Biden's old senate seat "keeping it warm" until Biden's son comes back from the service where he will just waltz in and the seat will be his. All I can say is W-T-F??????
Like I say, I thought senate seats were appointed by people who vote for the candidates to fill the seat. Now I'm hearing seats are just being given to the children and relatives of the ones who held the seat before them. Tell me there isn't something wrong with what is going on. Cripes! We got rid of Bill (finally), sort of got rid of Hillary, and now little miss Chelsea is trying to weezle her way into the scene via mommy and daddy to get there.
WASHINGTON — Katherine Harris (search) may have been the darling of the Republican establishment when she stuck her neck out as Florida secretary of state to halt the 2000 presidential election recount, but she doesn't seem to be getting much love from GOP powerbrokers today.
Bailout dies in Senate.........sm
It's over, at least for this year. I don't know, and the article did not state, whether there will be more talks after the first of the year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B50CL20081212?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
That was in his Illinois senate term...
this one was in the US Senate. Yeah, he shows up for the important votes like against the Infant Born Alive Act...twice...and now we find out FOR the bridge to nowhere and AGAINST Katrina victims. Still makes me question his judgments and his priorities. Sorry, that is the way I see it.
He spent most of his time in senate
running for president. It is a shame the people of socialism did not even get proper representation from him. Anyone else with a job to do would be expected to actually DO the job. What's he going to run for if he actually does win the presidency? World Socialization and kissing cousins with terroists?
He makes money outside of the senate -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23796726/
his tax returns have been released. The link above kind of breaks it down - but he does not make $4 million a year. But his books do sell pretty darn good...
He knows DC, knows how to get results, Congress, Senate,
Yeah. Sounds like a real scary threat. Do qualified, highly skilled and immensely experienced people such as this always intimidate you so?
Senate document 06-570 supposedly
verifies this info, but I searched and couldn't find it. Maybe someone smart can find this.
Very concerned. Senate acts like
for not paying his taxes. If I did not pay my taxes can I just have a slap on the hand too?
All I care about is that Mr. G. knows what he is doing and hope it works for our economy. I think Mr. G. is the one who has the most difficult job right now with our economy and housing market. Hope he knows how to distribute money, etc., because he sure has heck does not know how to pay his taxes.
What a concept, a politician who come to the Senate.....sm
with tons of experience in screwing people....and is not ashamed to record it!! I say she is uniquely qualified for the politics! IMHO
I'm hoping that some in Congress and the Senate
don't let him blindly lead them down that road. We have a national security force now, the National Guard, but of course, they're stuck fighting for our country since the draft was banned.
We need to get back to draft registration like it used to be, then our military will be good and the Guard can stay home and protect us like they're supposed to be doing.
Hackett has his work cut out for him, but I hope the vets keep running. It is a good sign of potential changes in the WH soon.
Ohio War Veteran Running for Senate
By DAN SEWELL
The Associated Press Monday, October 24, 2005; 2:54 PM
CINCINNATI -- Paul Hackett, the Democratic veteran of the Iraq war who narrowly lost a special election in a heavily Republican congressional district in August, made his official entry into a U.S. Senate race Monday.
He faces a tough Democratic primary with Rep. Sherrod Brown in the race for the nomination to challenge second-term Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine next year.
Paul Hackett, the Democratic veteran of the Iraq war who narrowly lost in a special election in a heavily Republican congressional district in August, announces his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, at his home in Cincinnati, Ohio. (AP Photo/Al Behrman) (Al Behrman - AP)
Hackett's only political experience is a stint as a small-city councilman.
I'm asking all the people of this great state, regardless of political affiliation, to consider my message and to consider joining me in the fight to take back our government from the career politicians and their special interest support groups who have hijacked our government, he said as he announced his campaign at his home in suburban Indian Hill.
Hackett decided to run for Congress earlier this year after completing a seven-month tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine reservist. That special election in southern Ohio's seven-county 2nd District was to replace Rep. Rob Portman, who left his seat to become the U.S. trade representative.
Hackett won the Democratic nomination, then battled Republican Jean Schmidt, a former state legislator, in a campaign in which he linked her to embattled Republican Gov. Bob Taft while sharply criticizing President Bush's handling of the war.
Schmidt won on Aug. 2 with 52 percent of the vote, though Portman had consistently won re-election in the district with more than 70 percent and Bush had carried it in 2004 with 64 percent.
Hackett's strong showing in a state that was a pivotal presidential battleground solidified the attorney as a likely 2006 candidate for Congress or statewide office.
After Hackett decided to oppose DeWine, Hackett was irked when Brown, with three decades of elective politics behind him, decided he also would run.
Brown, a former state legislator and Ohio secretary of state, is in his seventh congressional term, representing northeastern Ohio's 13th District. He's expected to officially launch his Senate race in early November.
Brown said Monday he initially didn't plan to run because of family reasons, but changed his mind with his family's encouragement. He said he wasn't expecting the race for the May 2 primary to damage his chances of defeating DeWine in the general election.
I've had primaries before, Brown said. It makes me a stronger candidate.
stimulus package, I'm getting more furious every hour with some of the senators.
It seems there is no bipartisanship happening except the republicans trying to stop the bloated parts of the package, that which has nothing to do with the stimulus. So far, the amount is up to $990B and growing. One senator pointed out that if it passes the way it is, it will be over $1.7 TRILLION and we can't afford it.
Senator Tom Coburn (R) OK stated the Constitution gave us no authorization to do what we're doing (meddling in business, banking, etc.) He had a wonderful speech. I hope to find it on the 'net later.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) TN stated fix housing first.
Sen. James Inhofer (R) OK states he hopes all republicans stand up and agree this won't work but Sen. McCain's amendment should pass and WILL work. I don't know what's in Sen. McCain's amendment as it's not posted yet.
Now, my absolutely favorite senator (NOT!): Sen. Schumer (D) NY. He stated THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT THIS STIMULUS and sort of threatened in a veiled way that it WILL PASS no matter what the republicans want. I think everybody and their friends and family ought to clog his email with messages of how we DON'T want this package the way it is and since when is he a mindreader? The article I posted is probably the American people he is talking about.
Now there's a guy who really understands the American people. I found a little item on the 'net while I was looking for other stuff and I'm providing the link. Maybe a lot of you saw this before, but this is the first I've seen it. The date is JANUARY 22, 2007, so he knew all along that there was trouble brewing.
According to Schumer and Klobuchar, they are sending a letter to AIG Liddy (sp) to tell them to renegotiate the bonuses or give the bonus money back, or else they will draft a LAW and take immediate steps to impose a tax as high as 91% on these bonuses.
I don't know how they can do that, although I would like to see it happen. But if they can break the contracts for AIG, then they can break any contract at will. That's a bit scary.
The Senate is about to vote on a crucial bill, the revised H.R. 4437, that could give amnesty to 12-30 million illegal aliens and open the door for their relatives and a new flood of illegals to enter, which could mean 100-200 million new people coming into the country in 20 years according to expert analysis, virtually all poor, diminishing wages, increasing the crime rate, and bankrupting tax coffers. Now is the time to call any of the key Senators who could be persuaded into a NO vote, otherwise, there is a chance the House-Senate joint committee will approve for a likely vote in the House:
Lindsay Graham (SC): (202) 224-5972 Chuck Hagel (NE): (202) 224-4224 Richard Lugar (IN): (202) 224-4814 Mel Martinez (FL): (202) 224-3041 John McCain (AZ): (202) 224-2235 Richard Shelby (AL): (202) 224-5744 Olympia Snowe (ME): 202) 224-5344 Arlen Specter (PA): (202) 224-4254 Ted Stevens (AK): (202) 224-3004 George Voinovich (OH): (202) 224-3353 John Warner (VA): (202) 224-2023 Robert Bennett (UT): (202) 224-5444 Sam Brownback (KS): (202) 224-6521 Lincoln Chafee (RI): (202) 224-2921 Norm Coleman (MN): (202) 224-5641 Susan Collins (ME) (202) 224-2523 Larry Craig (ID): (202) 224-2752 Mike DeWine (OH): (202) 224-2315
WASHINGTON, Jun. 22, 2006
By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent
(AP)
(AP) The Republican-controlled Senate smothered a proposed election-year increase in the minimum wage Wednesday, rejecting Democratic claims that it was past time to boost the $5.15 hourly pay floor that has been in effect for nearly a decade.
The 52-46 vote was eight short of the 60 needed for approval under budget rules and came one day after House Republican leaders made clear they do not intend to allow a vote on the issue, fearing it might pass.
The Senate vote marked the ninth time since 1997 that Democrats there have proposed _ and Republicans have blocked _ a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage. The debate fell along predictable lines.
Americans believe that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. A job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. He said a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn $10,700 a year, almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.
Kennedy also said lawmakers' annual pay has risen by roughly $30,000 since the last increase in the minimum wage.
Republicans said a minimum wage increase would wind up hurting the low-wage workers that Democrats said they want to help.
For every increase you make in the minimum wage, you will cost some of them their jobs, said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.
He described the clash as a classic debate between two very different philosophies. One philosophy that believes in the marketplace, the competitive system ... and entrepreneurship. And secondly is the argument that says the government knows better and that topdown mandates work.
The measure drew the support of 43 Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent. Four of those eight Republicans are seeking re-election in the fall.
Democrats had conceded in advance that this attempt to raise the minimum wage would fare no better than their previous attempts. At the same time, they have made clear in recent days they hope to gain support in the coming midterm elections by stressing the issue. Organized labor supports the legislation, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said that contrary to some impressions, most minimum wage workers are adults, not teenagers, and many of them are women.
When the Democrats control the Senate, one of the first pieces of legislation we'll see is an increase in the minimum wage, said Kennedy.
His proposal would have increased the minimum wage to $5.85 beginning 60 days after the legislation was enacted; to $6.55 one year later; and to $7.25 a year after that. He said inflation has eroded the value of the current $5.15 minimum wage by 20 percent.
With the help of a few rebellious Republicans, House Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee succeeded in attaching a minimum wage increase last week to legislation providing funding for federal social programs. Fearing that the House would pass the measure with the increase intact, the GOP leadership swiftly decided to sidetrack the entire bill.
I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our (rank and file) is opposed to it, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday.
Pressed by reporters, he said, There are limits to my willingness to just throw anything out on the floor.
On Wednesday, his spokesman, Kevin Madden, said Boehner has told fellow Republicans the House will have to deal with this some way. He said no decisions had been made.
While Democrats depend on organized labor to win elections, Republicans are closely aligned with business interests that oppose any increase in the federal wage floor or would like changes in the current system.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, offered an alternative that proposed a minimum wage increase of $1.10 over 18 months, in two steps.
The increase was coupled with a variety of provisions offering regulatory or tax relief to small businesses, including one to exempt enterprises with less than $1 million in annual receipts from the federal wage and hour law entirely. The current exemption level is $500,000, and a Republican document noted the amount had lagged behind inflation.
Additionally, Republicans proposed a system of optional flextime for workers, a step that Enzi said would allow employees, at their discretion, to work more than 40 hours one week in exchange for more time off the next. Unions generally oppose such initiatives, and the Republican plan drew 45 votes, with 53 in opposition.
MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
marks the location of current message within thread!["](http://statse.webtrendslive.com/dcsncwimc10000kzgoor3wv9x_3f2v/dcs.gif?dcsdat=472064181&dcssip=www.reuters.com&dcsuri=/sphereModules&WT.ti=SphereModule&ContentChannel=topNews&ContentType=SphereRelatedNews&rChannel=Sphere&rCountry=US&VirtualEvent=1&WT.cg_n=Sphere%20-%20Impression%20Related%20News"){kind=small}
![Sphere](http://www.reuters.com/resources/images/iconSphere.gif")
Sphere
