Except, of course, his rich friends. That's so much better, isn't it, than laws which address the issues directly and favor the greatest number of citizens?
Texan tort reform that was W's payback to the wealthy who put him in office in Texas has been a disastrous model, giving doctors less incentive than ever to perform skillfully and leaving thousands of people with no recourse when they are medically victimized because they can't afford any longer to bring a justified lawsuit or can't prove the doctor intended to cause harm (a ridiculous qualifier). Insurance rates have gone UP instead of down for everyone despite the fact that tort reform was sold on the platform of cutting rates due to fewer insurance payouts. And, those who can manage to get a case into court no longer have the right to have a jury hear their case. Activist pro-Republican pro-big-business judges are all they've got in some cases, which means they haven't a fair chance at a favorable outcome.
That's life in crony capital USA!
But oooh, let's pretend it really *is* medical lawsuits that are the villains, and let's boo and hiss at the lawyers who make sloppy doctors and sellers of defective merchandise fear being held accountable for their actions. Isn't that what life in Bushworld is all about? - relieving the very best among us from any civic and legal responsibility for the destruction and death they cause? Let's all cheer for that! Go on sm, cheer some more for losing your right to sue a drunk doctor who kills your child! Cheer for your higher insurance rates! Cheer for your free market enterprise unfettered with quality laws, because you know they're going to be more concerned about the safety of those products they sell you than they are about making more money! Heck yeah, why shouldn't we all love that? We're all morons, we love it when they stick it to us! We can't get enough of that, nosiree!
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Uhh...no...Bush would still be in Crawford Texas
We would still have weeks, if not months, of hillbilly wrangling before we tried to "talk" the pirates out of releasing the captain.
Bush’s Snoopgate The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.
Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.
This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.
This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.
Oh, but watch out for Obama - that Democrat might just FIX everything and then the Pubs will have no one to point fingers at.
What a joke that anyone thinks they can defend that jerk!
The Canadian ecomomy is hurting just like the US economy, Why are you stunned? nm
.
YES, I most certainly would if it meant sacrificing my morals, my soul, hurting.....sm
other people everywhere, and basically being a cut-throat sleeze. I would love if I could get rich honestly, with integrity. I would love to provide the best educations for my children, give to charities, pay off my two sisters' mortgages for them, etc., but it is NOT going to happen, so it is a moot point. A person can be "rich and prosperous" without a large bank account, I feel I am rich indeed for my blessings.
Well, you talked a little about tax reform, but
The only reason you haven't heard about Obama's tax cuts is because you have not been listening. His tax cut program will benefit 95% of the population, those individuals making less than $250,000 per year. Obama's plan also has an increase in deduction amounts for working families. I'll skip the scare tactics and terrorist innuendoes. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand…the economy. Preach that sermon to the choir. Nobody else is listening.
O's plan also proposes simplification of the tax code and streamlining tax filing. With regard to earmarks, Obama Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be considered by the full Senate. There are also provisions for tax relief to small businesses.
So it seems that you think tax policies take care of the economy issue. But what about unemployment, jobs, worker's right's, minimum wage, stagnant wages, cost of health care and medical insurance, trade, outsourcing, energy, infrastructure, the mortgage crisis, predatory credit and lending practices, the stock market, etc. Does McCain have anything that remotely compares with this?
1. $1000 energy rebate.
2. State growth fund/Jobs growth fund job loss prevention measures.
3. Tax cuts to working families.
4. Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000/yr.
5. Simplify tax code.
6. Trade policy reform.
7. Revise NAFTA to favor American jobs preservation.
8. Improve jobs transition assistance.
9. Tax credits to companies that preserve US jobs.
10. Establish Advanced Manufacturing Fund to encourage innovation and jobs creation.
11. Increased funding for Manufacturing Extension Program to create and protect US jobs.
12. 5 million new green jobs.
13. New job training programs for clean technologies.
14. Extend Production Tax Credit in renewable energy sector.
15. Create National Infrastructure Investment Bank.
16. Invest in science.
17. Make research and development tax credit permanent.
18. Reform Universal Service Fund to provide and expand broadband across America with new tax and loan incentives.
19. Tax relief for small businesses and start-up companies.
20. Create network of public-private business incubators.
21. Ensure freedom to unionize.
22. Ensure worker's right to organize.
23. Protect striking workers.
24. Raise minimum wage.
25. Crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders.
26. Create universal mortgage credit.
27. Ensure more accountability in the subprime mortgage industry.
28. Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
29. Close bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
30. Create credit card rating system to improve disclosure.
31. Establish credit card bill of rights to protect consumer.
32. Reform bankruptcy laws.
33. Cap interest rats on payday loans.
34. Encourage lending institutions to make small consumer loans.
35. Expand Family Medical Leave Act.
36. Encourage companies to adopt paid leave policies.
37. Expand after-school opportunities.
38. Expand Child and Dependent Care tax credit.
39. Protect against caregiver discrimination.
40. Expand flexible work arrangements. Earmark Reform
Obama To Push Earmark Reform At Omnibus Signing
Obama to sign spending bill, push for new rules
Obama plans to sign spending legislation, push for new rules that would crack down on earmarks
PHILIP ELLIOTT AP News
Mar 11, 2009 06:09 EST
President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist.
Obama could sign the $410 billion spending package as early as Wednesday, although he remains "troubled" by the so-called earmarks in the bill that Republicans and moderate Democrats have assailed as unworthy pork-barrel spending. The president planned to use the signing ceremony to announce earmark reforms.
White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No."
"This is necessary to continue funding government," Gibbs said. "It represents last year's business. Although it's not perfect, the president will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better."
It's that process that administration official planned to focus on Wednesday, not a bill signing that might take place in private. Aides said the administration would move to introduce new "rules of the road" that could allow Obama greater sway over lawmakers, particularly on politically embarrassing spending that generated mockery from pundits and rival politicians.
During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee.
While the White House would say only that Obama would announce new rules on earmarks on Wednesday, it was clear he wanted to rein in spending, particularly on the pet projects lawmakers inserted into the spending bill.
The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.
Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.
The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.
The measure was a top priority for Democratic leaders, who praised it for numerous increases denied by Bush. It once enjoyed support from Republicans.
But the bill ran into an unexpected political hailstorm in Congress after Obama's spending-heavy economic stimulus bill and his 2010 budget plan, which forecast a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.
The bill's big increases — among them a 14 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent increase for housing vouchers for the poor — represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with Bush over money for domestic programs.
Generous above-inflation increases are spread throughout, including a $2.4 billion, 13 percent increase for the Agriculture Department and a 10 percent increase for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system. The measure also contains a provision denying lawmakers the automatic cost-of-living pay increase they are due next Jan. 1.
What do I think about H. Clinton's mandatory health insurance proposal?
Here's my situation....I'm in my mid 50's, have a few pre-existing conditions, and am an IC doing medical transcription for years. I have health insurance which will cover the pre-existing conditions, however I rarely use the policy and have not been in a hospital for over 10 years. In 1999 my premium for coverage was about $250.00 per month. That same policy now costs me $1,097.00 per month, and that is coverage for one person.
I don't know about Hillary's proposals, or that much about anyone else's for all that goes. I do know however, that health care reform is being discussed again, and from where I am sitting I am a very strong supporter of health care reform, be it mandatory coverage or any other proposals. I frankly cannot afford monthly health insurance premiums that are running over one thousand dollars a month, and if you ask me, monthly health insurance premiums as high as this are criminal, to say the least.
Dear Friends, 1. ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates’ Tax Proposals (read more >>)
ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates’ Tax Proposals
The 2008 election is only days away. Soon you’ll be called on to vote for your next President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. Are you familiar with all their tax policies? Do you know where the candidates stand on the issues closely related to your family budget?
Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of all the recent materials we’ve put out on the Presidential candidates. We think you’ll find these resources and links to be very useful in your decision-making process.
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, discusses his thoughts on the two presidential candidates in the Politico. You may want to take a quick read to see what he thinks hinges on this election.
Educational Resources:
- Which candidates have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge? See if your candidate has promised never to raise taxes. (Incumbents and Challengers)
- Americans for Tax Reform and Rutledge Capital Release Version 2.0 of Obama-McCain 401(k) Tax Calculator
- McCain v. Obama on Taxes
- McCain vs. Obama on Energy Taxes
- He$$ in a Hand basket: Life Under a Democrat Congress
- Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama’s Small Biz Tax Hike
- Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” Plan Raises Taxes on two-thirds of Small Business Profits
- If Obama Wants to “Spread the Wealth,” He Ought to Start With His Personal Tax Gap: Barack Obama Has a Tax Gap of Over $250,000
- Obama to U.S. Companies: “Don’t Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out” Obama Supports Keeping U.S. Business Rate Second-Highest in World
- Worried About Your 401(k)? Start Asking Obama About the Corporate Income Tax Rate
- Obama Advisor Changes the Definition of “Welfare”: Free Money Handouts Are No Longer Enough
- Joe the Plumber cares about more than just his higher tax rates: Expensing his Equipment in year one
Please consider making a $10, $15, or $20 donation to help Americans for Tax Reform continue our work. Thank you for your generous support.
Healthy Marriage, Fatherhood Initiative Approved; Work Requirement Strengthened
Today, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
"The reauthorization of the TANF program takes the next step in welfare reform by strengthening work requirements and providing the assistance families need to climb the career ladder," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Welfare reform is helping millions of people climb out of poverty. Now, we want to go the next step and help them climb the job ladder by creating more opportunities for education and job training."
The new law maintains the same 50 percent work participation requirement for states as before. However, prior to today’s reauthorization, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload decline since 1996. As most states experienced dramatic caseloads declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states.
Today's reauthorization recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit and also closes a loophole to include separate state programs in the work calculation. These changes effectively re-implement a meaningful state work participation rate requirement as envisioned by the architects of welfare reform back in 1996.
"The reauthorization of welfare reform, with its strengthened state work participation rate requirement, supports the Bush Administration's goal of ending the crippling cycle of welfare dependency," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "Welfare reform is a success because more families and individuals are working and entering the economic mainstream and fewer children are growing up in poverty."
Today's reauthorization includes $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.
"A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood," Dr. Horn added. “Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform's ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children."
The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.
The welfare reauthorization provisions also made several improvements to the child support enforcement program, including a change that will provide more support directly to families, especially those who have left welfare.
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press
Writer 35 minutes ago
More than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies
still are failing to share information while Congress battles over security
funding, a panel that investigated the terrorist hijackings will conclude in a
new report.
In interviews Friday, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said the government should receive a dismal grade for its lack of urgency in
enacting strong security measures to prevent terror attacks.
The 10-member, bipartisan commission disbanded after issuing 41
recommendations to bolster the nation's security in July 2004. The members have
reconstituted themselves, using private funds, as the 9/11 Public Discourse
Project and will release a new report Monday assessing the extent their
directives have been followed.
Overall, the government has performed not very well, said former commission
chairman Thomas Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey.
Before 9-11, both the Clinton and Bush administrations said they had
identified Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as problems that have to be dealt with,
and were working on it, Kean said. But they just were not very high on their
priority list. And again it seems that the safety of the American
people is not very high on Washington's priority list.
A spokesman at the Homeland Security Department declined to comment until the
report is issued Monday. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee, acknowledged that some areas continue to be vulnerable but
have not been addressed due to disagreements with the Senate.
Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government
missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It found that the United
States could not protect its citizens from the attacks because it underestimated
al-Qaida. Since June, the former commissioners have held hearings to examine
what they described as the government's unfinished agenda to secure the
country.
Among the main concerns, which former Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer
said would receive the worst grades:
_The United States is not doing enough to ensure that foreign nations are
upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and
chemical materials. Such materials could be used in weapons of mass destruction,
and over 100 research reactors around the world have enough highly enriched
uranium present to make a nuclear device.
We've seen that Osama bin Laden likes to do spectacular things, said Roemer,
a former Indiana congressman. Is a dirty bomb next? ... We're not doing enough,
and we're not doing it urgently enough.
_Police, firefighters, medics and other first responders still lack
interconnected radio systems letting them communicate with each other during
emergencies. Responders from different agencies at the World Trade Center were
unable to coordinate rescues — or receive information that could have saved
their own lives — on 9/11.
Congress last year approved spending nearly $1 billion on interoperable
systems, but King said the matter is a very difficult issue.
_Both the Bush administration and Congress have continued to distribute
security funding to states without aiming most money at high-risk communities.
The Homeland Security Department gave $2.5 billion in grants to states and 50
high-risk cities last year, but some rural states, like Wyoming, received more
money per resident than terror targets like New York.
The House and Senate have been unable this year to agree on a funding formula
that distributes money based solely on risk, threats and vulnerability. King
said the Senate's proposal is still living with a pork-barrel formula. But
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins said in statement
that her bipartisan plan provides a meaningful baseline of funds to each state
so that the nation as a whole can achieve essential levels of preparedness.
Kean said information-sharing gaps among turf-conscious federal intelligence
agencies continue to exist. He also chastised the Transportation Security
Administration for failing to consolidate multiple databases of passenger
information into a single terror watch list that would make it easier for
airlines to screen for suspicious travelers.
Moreover, expanded governmental powers to seek out terror-related
intelligence have not been adequately balanced by civil liberties protections or
oversight, said former Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste. He said
President Bush was tardy in naming a civil liberties protection board, whose
funding is anemic and which has not yet been met to get underway.
A bright spot in the government's performance is the creation of a national
intelligence director to help coordinate all government terror information,
Roemer said.
Generally, the grades range all the way from A to F, Kean said.
Still, No parent would be happy with this report card, said former Democratic
commissioner Jamie Gorelick.
Not sure if the embed link below will work. If not, here's the link to the web page where you can watch it. I'll pose a question immediately below this post.
Hi, all. Here's one site to keep an eye on what your government is doing with health care:
http://www.cprights.org/
I do not want socialized medicine. In England, if you're over 55 and need dialysis? Too bad. You're over the age limit. Folks, this is a government run program and they have to draw the line somewhere. Think you'll still be able to get the same meds you're on now? Don't think they'll say some of them are too expensive?
I should warn you - this is a conservative web site, so if you really dislike conservatives, this isn't the site for you but it does appear to look like a good site to keep an eye on health care reform and you can sign up to receive updates on health care reform as it happens.
I don't know about you but right now, our entire country, our people, are losing the war - the war on freedom. We may lose little battles here and there but if you feel it's important enough, and I do, write your representatives, the president, whoever. Fight those little battles. We don't want to look back 4 years from now and say Oh, man, we should have done this or that...... I don't want to log in to the Q one morning to find out the government, as they have already done since O took over, has passed another bill while I was sleeping (some congressman and senators were threatened with Marshall law and a plummeting stock market if they didn't sign certain bills, which they had less than an hour to read) and now my job is gone because we have new healthcare.
Fight for your jobs! Our government cannot run Medicare and Medicaid and they're both sucking us dry, meanwhile giving really low reimbursement rates to doctors. Do you really think they can successfully insure our entire country? I'll let you judge for yourselves.
Please TAKE NOTICE..... Bold and underlined portions are my emphasis. Read the whole article link below.
"Obama wants a health care reform bill on his desk by October, but faces opposition from Republicans who oppose creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
Many of his fellow Democrats are wary of making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. health care programs for seniors and poor people, to pay for reforms.....
,,,,About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments.That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.
An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.
The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse."
They came to Texas, too. SM
My Vietnam veteran brothers and I and a bunch of the rest of us were there to meet and greet them. Needless to say, they didn't get anywhere near the funeral procession.
Only in Texas :)........ sm
Hunting blind - only in Texas
Fort Worth Star Telegram - Dec 12, 2006
House Bill 308 would allow Texans who are blind to go hunting. With guns. With real bullets... Perhaps Dick Cheney's hunting performance inspired the bill. Cheney is apparently blind and he is permitted to hunt birds in Texas.
80R1572 SGA-F
By: KuempelH.B. No. 308
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the use of laser sighting devices by hunters who are legally blind.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 62.005, Parks and Wildlife Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 62.005. HUNTING WITH LIGHT.Except as provided by Section 62.0055, no [No] person may hunt a game animal or bird protected by this code with the aid of an artificial light that casts or reflects a beam of light onto or otherwise illuminates the game animal or bird, including the headlights of a motor vehicle.
SECTION 2. Subchapter A, Chapter 62, Parks and Wildlife Code, is amended by adding Section 62.0055 to read as follows:
Sec. 62.0055. HUNTING WITH LASER SIGHTING DEVICE BY LEGALLY BLIND HUNTER.(a)In this section, legally blind has the meaning assigned by Section 62.104, Government Code.
(b) A legally blind hunter may use a laser sighting device during regular hunting hours when assisted by a person who is not legally blind.
(c) The legally blind hunter must carry proof of being legally blind.
SECTION 3. (a)Not later than January 1, 2008, the Parks and Wildlife Commission shall adopt rules that prescribe what is acceptable as proof of being legally blind under Section 62.0055, Parks and Wildlife Code, as added by this Act.
(b) The Parks and Wildlife Department may not enforce Section 62.0055(c), Parks and Wildlife Code, as added by this Act, until the rules adopted under Subsection (a) of this section take effect.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
I think it is like the old saying; you can take the person out of Texas but you can't take Texas out of the person. LOL I miss the BBQ most I think.
We must be in the same age group, 'm.........arg.........65. Unfortunately I didn't know a lot about my family, didn't get interested in genealogy until most of the older members of my family had passed, small family to begin with. I only remember bits and pieces of stories they told. I found it interesting that my G-G-grandfather freed his slaves before the War, yet my G-grandfather fought and died to preserve the rights of slave owners. One can find out some interesting things. I go back to one G-G-grandfather who was born in VA and then moved to TN before moving to AR in 1830. Everyone searching that family branch comes to a dead end with him. It is said that there was some kind of family scandal about the time of his birth but either no one knows or they aren't sharing what the scandal was. He doesn't match DNA with any of the other branches of the family. Strange indeed.
Maybe we should continue this discussion in email? I've taken us way off topic haven't I?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil's $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a shameful display of greed that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday.
Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation justifies giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.
There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers, Dorgan said.
Dorgan's criticism of Raymond's financial package came on the same day that U.S. crude oil prices hit a record high of more than $71 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Higher crude oil prices are helping to push of up gasoline costs. The Energy Department reported prices jumped 10 cents over the last week to a national average of $2.78 a gallon, up 55 cents from a year ago.
President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was concerned about the impact high gasoline prices were having on families and businesses.
Exxon earned the wrath of many lawmakers when it reported more than $36 billion in profits last year as energy prices paid by consumers soared.
Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.
I think a sensible public policy would insist that the big oil companies either invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies, or we should return some of that money to consumers, Dorgan said.
Using them to drop $400 million dollars in the pocket of a big oil executive is simply unacceptable, he added.
Exxon Mobil has defended Raymond's retirement package, saying it was pegged to the rise in the company's profit and market capitalization that occurred during his tenure.
"....Before the 1996 welfare reform law, Washington doled out more money every time a new family was added to the welfare rolls. If caseloads fell, states got less money. The system created a strong incentive to boost caseloads.
Reform ended the open-ended welfare “entitlement” and replaced it with a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Instead of linking funding to caseloads, the law replaced that money with block grants and gave states the policy goal of reducing the rolls.
The measure generated tremendous controversy, but it was effective. Caseloads declined by two-thirds. Millions of recipients formerly dependent on government made the transition from welfare to work.
Now we learn that the stimulus bill, signed Tuesday by President Barack Obama, will unravel much of the ’96 legislation.
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation — who helped write the ’96 law — says the stimulus measure would effectively give states bonuses for boosting caseloads. The new system, he says, is actually worse, because the payoff for increasing caseloads will be much higher than under the old program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
In a paper written with Katherine Bradley, Rector said that under the stimulus measure, “the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare.”
The policy goal of moving families to self-sufficiency has been largely replaced by a system that rewards states for increasing dependency...."
More here:
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1046780.html
Oh, and Obama had better get on Welfare reform QUICKLY before it is a run-away train, or did the tra
already leave the station. Extension of unemployment benefits, GREAT, because in this economy it takes so much more time to find a worthwhile job. Extension of COBRA is great. But the free ride that many dishonest and lazy Americans have enjoyed for generations should be put to an abrupt END. Sorry, I see it every day. Hire enough trained, educated case workers, get them out in the field investigating these fraudulant claims, and give the truly deserving and huring population the funds they need to get back on track, as they want to, and push the lazy and indigent to get productive for our country.
I also love the money going directly to the SBA (Small Business Administration), so many of us are fed up and would probably do better working with the SBA to secure low-interest, easy term loans, employ ourselves, employ others, get the taxes rolling, and be part of the solution. Okay safely off soap box for now!
Texas. Probably Obama most
prevalent. Can't help but think what 150 mil could do just in Galveston and Port Bolivar right now after Ike. These people are not getting all the fine help others have gotten, probably those in Iowa understand completely what I am saying. Voted yesterday by the way. Certify I am living, breathing, just voted one time and in only one voting place!
4 bucks? We pay 6 in Texas.
x
texas seceding
I hope Texas does secede -- I'd leave this sinking ship in a heartbeat, right ahead of the rats.
Progressives harping about camp finance reform for years.
We've heard virtually nothing out of the republican party on this issue (except resistance) until how. Why is that? Could it be because they never expected democrats to beat them at their own game?
Spare us the phoney outrage. As the law stands now, those small potatoes contributions up to $200 have not been an issue until Obama received such a landslide of them and raised more money than any other candidate in history.
You want somebody to do something about this? You will have to start at the beginning...swallow the bitter pill and enact campaign finance reform. Until then, you can raise all the questions you want to raise.
PS: Ghadafi's claims that foreign national fundraising is "legitimate" is pertinent to this argument how? Have you seen the global electoral map lately? The entire world has their eyes on this election (hoping against hope we will not elect another saber-rattler) and are entitled to have an opinion.
O.K. friend, I LOVE tax reform for the wealthier bunch, the small fry like us have been shouldering
too much of the burden for many, many years, I love the cut-off for those making over 250K....hey, if we were bringing in that $$$ we would be happy and spreading it around (don't mean the manure,either!). We need stronger immigration reform FOR SURE, it is a touchy subject, especially in states like mine with a large immigrant population, but they just held a huge, large, angry rally on the State House steps becaue they don't want families broken up by sending the illegals back. Sorry, as a grandchild of immigrants who came here, assimmilated, learned, worked hard, payed taxes,and became PROUD AMERICANS, I feel strongly this is the right and only way and our president should enforce this. They are called "illegal" for a reason.
There are too many "Pet Projects" in states where the reps helped fund the Obamaa campaign, and these investments will not have a long term good for the country, we need programs that will directly affet the economy and the Americal worker ASAP. I believe he is forging ahead too quickly and blindly with relations with Syria, a known hot spot for extremists and terrorists, although I believe in the old addage "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," and I think that is what he is doing with Hillary going to Asia and Southeast Asia and opening talks with Syria and Korea. All in all, I just want to give this honest man a chance to get going on some things, see some of the results and go from there before I open mouth and insert foot!!!
I'm pretty concerned about the Texas crooks s/m
You know everything is bigger and better in Texas. Bush/Cheney have pretty much proved to my satisfaction that crooks even grow bigger in Texas. Chicago crooks will have to get up pretty early to beat 'em.
FYI, Halliburton and KBR are headquartered in Houston Texas
the "ties" between the Bush Family and Halliburton and KBR are legendary down in the Lone Star and go back generations. W's Uncle Prescott was director at Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton. HW Bush worked there as well 1948-1951. KBR was embroiled in the W administration controversy surrounding the cimcumvention of normal contractor hiring protocol for Iraq. You must have a really short attention span.
Being from Texas, I've had an extra 5 years
Don't believe in all that phoney outrage. I've done my time and prefer to call a spade a spade.
Oh yeah, Texas is the right place for the likes of him sm
Family oriented? He produced 2 drunken daughters. His wife is nice but the rest of them are pathetic entitled spoiled rotten human beings. Oh yeah, Texas is the right place for the likes of him sm
Family oriented? He produced 2 drunken daughters. His wife is nice but the rest of them are pathetic entitled spoiled rotten human beings. What land in Texas is even worth 'grabbing'?
nm
Secret Service Shows Up At Texas Mom's Door...
Quote:
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Quote:
Last week, here in America, they came for Jessica Hughes, and I will not be silent. I will not turn away, hoping, in the end, they will not come for me.
Jessica Hughes of Lufkin, Texas, former Marine, mother of three, answered her cell phone in the car, coming home from the emergency room. Her 9-year-old had suffered a mild concussion, but was OK.
The caller was a female Obama volunteer who asked if Jessica would support Obama for president.
Jessica replied, "No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." Then Jessica hung up.
The next day, a man and a woman in suits showed up at the door of her home, identifying themselves as members of the Secret Service.
The Secret Service agents stated that the Obama campaign had complained of a death threat. They had quoted Jessica as saying, "I will never support Obama, and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."
Jessica's husband had heard Jessica's side of the original phone call and verified the actual quote. To which the female agent replied, "Oh? Well why would she (the Obama volunteer) make that up?"
Jessica replied that the Obama volunteer was probably unhappy about what Jessica had said about her candidate. The female agent then said "That's right, you were rude!"
The male agent then displayed a file with Jessica's full name prominently printed on it and asked her how she felt about Obama. At this point, the former Marine told the agent "in no uncertain terms" (as she later recounted) that this was America and that the last time she checked, she was allowed to think whatever she wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. And was being "rude" a federal crime now too?
The agents then admitted they had no tape of the conversation, just the quote from the Obama campaign.
Responding to Jessica's questions, the agents would not identify themselves by name, nor reveal the name of the Obama volunteer who had made the complaint. The agents did indicate that Jessica was not in a court of law yet, and that they were trying to not embarrass her "by going to all her family and neighbors."
To these implied threats, Jessica invited the agents to speak to whomever they wanted, and stated she would happily go to court since she had done nothing wrong.
Jessica asked the agents, "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate, and I can't tell them why I don't?"
The Secret Service left Jessica that day, but she could not get the "visit" out of her mind.
As republican a state as you can get. So who are the moochers again?
Pretty weak - Johnson was a product of Texas politics,
....just like Bush, Rove, Delay, and a slew of other Suite F-8 Texans now strangling our democracy. Kennedy didn't like him, and Johnson went into fits of rage over his brother, Robert Kennedy, who he never referred to as anything but that son of a b****. Johnson was financed throughout his unstoppable career by Brown & Root (today KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton). Politically he was a far closer match to the current Republicans both in ideology and political technique (woo them with money, destroy them if they won't cooperate with the agenda, and remember to feed that war machine at every opportunity).
Johnson was a Democrat because 60 years ago that was the Texan standard. But, he paved the way for the current breed of southern Republicans to take control. It's no surprise that Johnson leapt right into Viet Nam or collaborated with people who wished to deceive and manipulate the American people - that is what these people do. Kennedy was the true Democrat - but that just wouldn't do for either Johnson or the rest of his political soulmates who are, of course, Republicans.
Mandatory evac all along Texas coast. I'm hearing lots.
I live in the path of Ike. Mandatory evac supposedly is starting around 10 a.m. I am trying to figure out whether I am staying home or hitting road. Whenever they come up for breath in the middle of lipstick on pigs and McCains preverted add long enough to actually name the mandatory evacation towns/cities, I'd appreciate a heads up.
Liberal truth vs. Conservative truth.
x
Texas supreme court affirms special rights for religion
The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.
Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.
Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.
However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.
Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.
LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.
According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”
“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but...It's probably the biggest...sm
reason why I am voting democrat...they seem more honest than the the republicans and it looks like people are starting to get smart and *bailin' Palin*... We don't need to keep hearing her *greatest hits" version of her acceptance speech over and over and McSame's POW story...that was then, this is now...we need REAL change and we need it NOW. I don't need someone to push the red button, I need someone to fix the economy!
Truth? The truth is she is nuts!
nm
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
Bush aides challenge Biden's boasts of Bush slapdowns.
Aides to former President George W. Bush are challenging the veracity of Vice President Joe Biden's claim this week of having privately castigated Bush, who does not remember the incident or an earlier episode in which Biden claims to have similarly rebuked Bush.
Biden spokesman Jay Carney declined to specify the dates of his boss's purported Oval Office scoldings of Bush. Nor would he provide witnesses or notes to corroborate the episodes.
"The vice president stands by his remarks," Carney told FOX News without elaboration.
Those remarks include a shot that Biden took at Bush on Tuesday.
"I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office," Biden told CNN, "'Well, Joe,' he said, 'I'm a leader.' And I said: 'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"
That exchange never took place, according to numerous Bush aides who also dispute a similar assertion by Biden in 2004, when the former senator from Delaware told scores of Democratic colleagues that he had challenged Bush's moral certitude about the Iraq war during a private meeting in the Oval Office. Two years later, Biden repeated his story about dressing down the president.
"When I speak to the president - and I have had plenty of opportunity to be with the president, at least prior to the last election, a lot of hours alone with him. I mean, meaning me and his staff," Biden said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2006. "And the president will say things to me, and I'll literally turn to the president, say: 'Mr. President, how can you say that, knowing you don't know the facts?' And he'll look at me and he'll say - my word - he'll look at me and he'll say: 'My instincts.' He said: 'I have good instincts.' I said: 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough.'"
Bush aides now dispute the veracity of both assertions by Biden.
"I never recall Biden saying any of that," former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said after reviewing detailed notes of Bush's White House meetings with Biden, which include numerous direct quotes from Biden. "I find it odd that he said he met with him alone all the time. I don't think that's true."
Fleischer said that whenever Bush met with Sen. Biden, the meeting also included a congressional counterpart so as to not "antagonize" the House.
Karl Rove, former White House political adviser, also was skeptical of Biden's claim to have spent "a lot of hours alone" with Bush.
"I remember checking on such a Biden exaggeration while at the White House and no one witnessed the meeting and his comments in remotely the same way," Rove said.
Candida P. Wolff, Bush's White House liaison to Capitol Hill, said the only meetings she remembered between Bush and Biden also included other lawmakers. She said such meetings were held in the Cabinet Room or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the Oval Office, and certainly did not last for "hours."
"The president would never sit through two hours of Joe Biden," Wolff said. "I don't ever remember Biden being in the Oval. He was such a blowhard on all that stuff - there wasn't a reason to bring him in."
Andy Card, former White House chief of staff, reviewed the two Biden claims and said: "This does not ring true to me. I doubt that it happened."
A spokesman for Bush declined comment, although a person close to the former president said Bush does not remember either episode.
This is not the first time the veracity of Biden's assertions has been challenged. In 1988, he dropped out of the presidential race after being accused of plagiarizing British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. The Washington Post also cited "the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record."
Last year, liberal Slate magazine recalled that "Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect."
Also last year, Biden came under fire for telling a questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq.
"Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube in July. "Number one, you take all the troops out -- you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die."
But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed."
Biden went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said.
"No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head."
Seven weeks after claiming to have been "shot at" in Iraq, Biden again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones -- this time on "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where my helicopter was forced down."
"If you want to know where AL Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."
But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February 2008. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.
"We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."
marks the location of current message within thread
MSNBC.com
![](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-speak-med.jpg")
Hunting blind - only in Texas
