EndrTimes: SENATE

Showing posts with label SENATE. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Cybersecurity bill to give president new emergency powers

Photo (Coutesy) http://www.infiniteunknown.net/tag/cybersecurity/

By Tony Romm - 02/26/10 02:30 PM ET

The president would have the power to safeguard essential federal and private Web resources under draft Senate cybersecurity legislation.

According to an aide familiar with the proposal, the bill includes a mandate for federal agencies to prepare emergency response plans in the event of a massive, nationwide cyberattack.

The president would then have the ability to initiate those network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a cyberattack of unprecedented scope, the aide said.

Ultimately, the legislation is chiefly the brainchild of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively. Both lawmakers have long clamored for a federal cybersecurity bill, charging that current measures — including the legislation passed by the House last year — are too piecemeal to protect the country's Web infrastructure.

Their renewed focus arrives on the heels of two, high-profile cyberattacks last month: A strike on Google, believed to have originated in China, and a separate, more disjointed attack that affected thousands of businesses worldwide.

Rockefeller and Snowe's forthcoming bill would establish a host of heretofore absent cybersecurity prevention and response measures, an aide close to the process said. The bill will "significantly [raise] the profile of cybersecurity within the federal government," while incentivizing private companies to do the same, according to the aide.

Additionally, it will "promote public awareness" of Internet security issues, while outlining key protections of Americans' civil liberties on the Web, the aide continued.

Privacy groups are nonetheless likely to take some umbrage at Rockefeller and Snowe's latest effort, an early draft of which leaked late last year.

When early reports predicted the cybersecurity measure would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," online privacy groups said they felt that would endow the White House with overly ambiguous and far-reaching powers to regulate the Internet.

The bill will still contain most of those powers, and a "vast majority" of its other components "remain unchanged," an aide with knowledge of the legislation told The Hill. But both the aide and a handful of tech insiders who support the bill have nonetheless tried to dampen skeptics' concerns, reminding them the president already has vast — albeit lesser-known — powers to regulate the Internet during emergencies.

It is unclear when Rockefeller and Snowe will finish their legislation. And the ongoing debate over healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, jobs bills and education fixes could postpone action on the floor for many months.

Both lawmakers heavily emphasized the need for such a bill during a Senate Commerce Committee cybersecurity hearing on Wednesday.

"Too much is at stake for us to pretend that today’s outdated cybersecurity policies are up to the task of protecting our nation and economic infrastructure," Rockefeller said. "We have to do better and that means it will take a level of coordination and sophistication to outmatch our adversaries and minimize this enormous threat."

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/83961-forthcoming-cybersecurity-bill-to-give-president-new-powers-in-cyberattack-emergencies

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Sen. Jay Rockefeller: "the shark that sits right below the water"...

Sound Bites
2010

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., WV), Health care summit, 2-25-2010, Health Insurance Industry is a shark beneath the water (:11)

The health insurance industry is the shark that sits right below the water and you don’t see that shark until you feel the teeth of that shark.

http://miccheckradio.org/audio/audio_archive/health_insurance_industry_is_a_shark_beneath_the_water/

P.S.

What a great analogy for the sharks that swim below the water, with the teeth, etc?

Could Jay Rockerfeller fit that same description of a prehistoric sea predator swiming in the midst of an unsuspecting public? With the rows of teeth to boot? What a way to swim?

Is someone projecting, here?

The U.S. Senate:

A millionaire's dream... Where men get paid for doing nothing, but talking.

.A millionaire's This is like a Starkist commercial!dSorry, Charlie.

.ream

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Who is "Scott Brown"?

Scott Brown
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_P._Brown)

Scott Philip Brown (born September 12, 1959) is the United States Senator-elect from Massachusetts. On January 19, 2010, he defeated Democrat Martha Coakley 52% to 47% in the special election to fill the remaining three years of the U.S. Senate term vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Brown became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts since 1972.[2] While initially trailing Coakley in polling by a large margin, Brown closed the gap in the first weeks of January 2010 before going on to win the election.[3][4][5][6] Pending his imminent resignation from the Massachusetts Senate, he continues to represent the Norfolk, Bristol & Middlesex District;[7] Brown has held this office since 2004.[8] His state political experience consists of nearly three terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and three terms in the Massachusetts Senate.[9] Prior to entering the state legislature, he had public executive experience as a town selectman. He is a practicing attorney, concentrating in real estate law.[10][11][12] and serving as defense counsel in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the military.

Brown is a graduate of Wakefield High School (1977), Tufts University (1981), and Boston College Law School (1985).

Early life and education

...

He graduated from Wakefield High School in 1977.[8] He received a Bachelors of Arts in History[17], cum laude from Tufts University in 1981 and a Juris Doctor from Boston College Law School in 1985. During his undergraduate career at Tufts, Brown was a member of the Kappa Chapter of Zeta Psi International Fraternity.[13][18]

Political positions

Brown has positioned himself as an independent conservative counterweight to Massachusetts' current all-Democratic, 12-member Congressional delegation.[1][14] He describes himself as fiscally conservative and socially conscious. He has said, "I'm going to be the only person down there who is going to be the independent voter and thinker...I've always been the underdog in one shape or form."[14]

Fiscal policy

Brown opposes a proposed multi-billion dollar tax on banks and prescribing bank executive compensation. Brown, discussing the proposal through a spokesperson, said that he is "opposed to higher taxes, especially in the midst of a severe recession". He also opposes it on the grounds that the tax would likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher service and ATM fees.[48][49]

He supported the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, which requires all residents to purchase health insurance. He opposes the bills approved in late 2009 by the Democratic-led House and Senate as fiscally unsound.[50]

...

Personal life

Family

Brown is married to WCVB-TV reporter Gail Huff; they have two daughters, Ayla Brown, an American Idol semi-finalist and star basketball player at Boston College, and Arianna Brown, a competitive equestrian and pre-medical student at Syracuse University. Besides their primary home in Wrentham, Massachusetts, the couple owns a home in Rye, New Hampshire, three condos in Boston, and a timeshare on the Caribbean island of Aruba.[14][59][60][61]

Religion

Brown and his family worship at New England Chapel in Franklin, a member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America which is a Protestant Christian denomination. They also have a relationship with an order of Cistercian[62] Roman Catholic nuns at Mount St. Mary's Abbey in Wrentham. The Brown family has raised over $5 million for the order, helping to install solar panels, a wind turbine and a candy manufacturing plant that the order operates. Sister Katie McNamara has said of the family, "[w]e pray for them every day".[14]

Modeling

In June 1982, Brown, then a 22-year-old law student at Boston College, won Cosmopolitan magazine's "America's Sexiest Man" contest. Brown was featured in the magazine's centerfold, posing nude but covering his genitalia with his left arm and hand.[1][63][64] In the accompanying interview, he referred to himself as "a bit of a patriot" and stated that he had political ambitions. He used his earnings from the shoot to pay for college.[1][63] Brown has also worked as an actor in his early career,[1] appearing in a variety of television commercials and university productions.[14]

...

References

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_P._Brown

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Senate Chaplain: Religious Leader For Secular Flock

by Audie Cornish
January 23, 2010

Audio for this story from Weekend Edition Saturday will be available at approx. 12:00 p.m. ET

Walter Ray Watson/NPR
Senate Chaplain Barry Black (second from right) prays with his staff before delivering the prayer to open the legislative day of the U.S. Senate.

January 23, 2010

Most mornings, after the gavel is struck in the Senate chamber on Capitol Hill, a prayer is offered in that most secular body — a practice that goes back to the founding fathers at the Continental Congress in 1774.

Chaplain Barry C. Black delivers the prayer, offering up some of the first words heard each day in the chamber.

Black works from an office in the Capitol building, a well-appointed room with high, arched ceilings and wall-to-wall mahogany bookcases. Compared with the number of people working for senators, the chaplain's staff is downright humble. He has an executive assistant, a director of communications and a chief of staff.

But from this third-floor perch in the Capitol building, Black enjoys one of the best views of the National Mall's mosaic of cherry trees, museums and monuments.

Biblical Analysis For Earthly Decisions

The role the chaplain performs for the Senate stands almost at the meeting point between church and state. He's a religious leader and shepherd to what is essentially a secular flock. This includes the Senate lawmakers, their families and their staffs, as well as all the other people who work on the Senate side of the Capitol — nearly 6,000 people in all.

When the health care bill was being debated in the chamber, the people at my Bible study were from both sides of the aisle.

- Chaplain Barry Black

His job entails coordinating events with other spiritual leaders throughout the year, from rabbis to Muslim imams. He officiates at weddings, funerals and christenings for lawmakers, their families and their staffs, and offers one-on-one counseling on matters both spiritual and private.

He also leads five Bible study groups each week, including one that is made up of just senators. Black says he thinks that for almost any issue the Senate is debating, there are biblical aspects that can be discussed in the study groups he holds.

"For instance, when the health care bill was being debated in the chamber, the people at my Bible study were from both sides of the aisle," Black says. "And though we did not talk directly about the health care bill, I did a study on euthanasia and what the Bible says about 'end of life.' "
That particular Bible study he led for senators occurred around the time last year that the term "death panels" was bandied about by opponents of the health care legislation. Black addressed the death panels discussion, he says, because the Bible addresses it.

"My Bible themes come from what is actually going on, on Capitol Hill," Black says.

A Job Backed By The Founding Fathers

Though pending legislation sometimes informs the topics of his teachings, the chaplain says his position is nonpartisan and nonsectarian. While offering prayers on the floor of the Senate and in leading Bible study groups, he says he doesn't give his personal opinion on public policy or legislation. But if a senator asks him, Black will speak his mind, behind closed doors.

This raises a question: How appropriate is this practice of chaplains giving senators their opinions? Is it inappropriate to have this extraordinary access? Access that citizens — voters who elected senators — don't enjoy?

Black says the framers of the Constitution intended that guidance be available to the nation's lawmakers.

Walter Ray Watson/NPR
Black reads from a prayer book in his office. He is the 62nd Chaplain of the U.S. Senate

"And remember, the establishment clause says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' " Black says. "So to have the opportunity of being advised from an ethical perspective, the framers basically said we think we should be there."

The Path To Senate Chaplain

The chaplain is full of nuggets, quotes from speeches, verses from the Gospels, passages from Longfellow and even the wisdom of Barney Fife.

"Your children are not your children," he recites from The Prophet without notes. "They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself. They come through you, but not from you, and though they are with you, they do not belong to you."

Black learned the practice of memorizing from his mother, Pearline Buck Black, a devout Christian and Seventh-day Adventist. She raised her eight children in Baltimore's public housing with her husband, Lester Black, who was a truck driver.

In Pearline's home, any of her children could earn a nickel for memorizing a Bible verse. But it was young Barry who began memorizing the sermons of famous preachers, including Peter Marshall, a Scottish-born Presbyterian minister who also served as Senate chaplain.

But Black says he didn't even know Congress had chaplains until he was in his 20s in college.

Black picked up several college degrees before he became a preacher. He was told he was too young to be assigned his own congregation within the Seventh-day Adventist church, so he became a traveling minister.

In the 1970s, he was preaching in North Carolina when he encountered two young black servicemen who visited from the Norfolk, Va., area, regularly driving three to four hours to hear him. When he asked why they'd come so far, they mentioned that in the Navy, they'd never seen an African-American chaplain.

This planted a seed — and inspired Black to join the Navy shortly after.

Two decades later, he was Rear Adm. Barry Black, and a chief of chaplains — the first African American to hold the position.

In 2003, he was appointed to the Senate, where he says his job has given him "a pleasant surprise."

"The level of spirituality of many of the senators was greater than I expected [it] to be," Black says.
.
.
Source:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122872399
.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Obama, Dems Agree to Closed-Door Health Negotiations

Updated January 06, 2010

FOXNews.com

President Obama and congressional Democrats head into another strategy session Wednesday over health care reform after deciding Tuesday night to keep the final negotiations as GOP-free as possible by bypassing the traditional conference committee process.

Jan. 5: Rep. Chris Van Hollen and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speak at a news conference to discuss health care legislation. (AP Photo)

President Obama and congressional Democrats head into another strategy session Wednesday over health care reform after deciding Tuesday night to keep the final negotiations as GOP-free as possible by bypassing the traditional conference committee process.

The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress decided to keep the last leg of talks a closed-door affair. They concluded that the House will work off the Senate's version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting.

The move streamlines the process to avoid Republican efforts to slow it down.

But Republicans aren't giving up yet. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., on Wednesday released a list of 37 House Democrats he claims can be persuaded to vote against the final bill. Cantor noted that Democrats can't afford to lose one of the 60-vote coalition they assembled in the Senate and can't afford to lose more than two of the 220 votes they assembled on the House side.

"I still believe there is an opportunity to prevent this bill -- a bill that will fundamentally alter the relationship between patients and doctors, harm seniors, and impose massive taxes and mandates on small businesses -- from becoming law," he wrote. "If we can convince enough of these 37 members (along with the 39 Democrats who already voted no) to reconsider and switch their position on the bill, I know that we can defeat this government take-over of our health care before it becomes law."

Cantor listed House Democrats who are known to have anti-abortion views as well as Democrats who represent a lot of seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage. The Republican argued that proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage and potentially "weakened" language on restrictions for abortion funding could put those Democrats in play.

Obama is expected to meet with top House Democrats Wednesday afternoon, as they craft strategy well before Congress returns. The aim is to get a final bill to Obama's desk before the State of the Union policy address sometime in early February.

Democrats reacted defensively to criticism that they are taking the final, most crucial stage of the debate behind closed doors, contending they've conducted a transparent process with hundreds of public meetings and legislation posted online. Republicans seized on a newly released letter from the head of the C-SPAN network calling on congressional leaders to open the final talks to the public, and cited Obama's campaign trail pledge to do just that.

Asked about that promise, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked, without elaboration: "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail."

Facing the need to maintain a tenuous 60-vote coalition in the Senate, House Democrats likely will have to give up on starting a new government insurance plan to compete with the private market, something that's a nonstarter with Senate moderates. In its place they hope for more generous subsidies for lower-income families to buy health insurance.

Obama agreed at Tuesday evening's meeting to help strengthen affordability measures beyond what's in the Senate bill, the aide said.

Pelosi suggested Tuesday that House members wouldn't insist on the government plan as long as the final bill provides "affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies ... accessibility by lowering cost at every stage."

"There are other ways to do that, and we look forward to having those discussions," she said.
House Democrats want the Senate to agree to language revoking insurers' antitrust exemption as a way to hold insurance companies accountable in absence of direct government competition, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the House leadership.

The bills passed by the House and Senate both would require nearly all Americans to get health insurance coverage and would provide subsidies for many who can't afford the cost, but they differ on hundreds of details. Among them are whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to buy coverage in the new markets with their own money.

Concerns about affordability are paramount. Major subsidies under the bills wouldn't start flowing to consumers until 2013 at the earliest. Even with federal aid, many families still would face substantial costs.

The House bill would provide $602 billion in subsidies from 2013-2019, covering an additional 36 million people.

The Senate bill would start the aid a year later, providing $436 billion in subsidies from 2014-2019, and reducing the number of uninsured by 31 million.

"Affordability is a critical issue," Van Hollen said.

But sweetening the deal for low- and middle-income households could require more taxes to pay for additional subsidies. And the House and Senate are also at odds over whom to tax. The House wants to raise income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million. The Senate would slap a new tax on high-cost insurance plans. Although the Obama administration supports the Senate's insurance tax as a cost-saver, labor unions, which contribute heavily to Democratic candidates, are against it.

The House may end up accepting the insurance tax if it hits fewer people than the Senate's design now calls for. There also could be common ground in a Senate proposal to raise Medicare payroll taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples over $250,000.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/06/obama-takes-hands-role-push-final-health/

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Blame the Bishops

AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid December 23, 2009

The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House.

A lot is being said and written about why national health care legislation is becoming a reality. The simple fact, available for all to see, is that the U.S. Catholic Bishops ensured passage of the bill in the House, enabling the Senate to move forward with its version.

Like "progressive" strategist Robert B. Creamer, the Bishops believe that health care is a right to be guaranteed by government. This position has driven the debate and has rarely been challenged by Republicans. The debate over abortion has been mostly a diversion. Perhaps it has been planned that way

As we were the first to disclose, Creamer, an ex-con and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, emphasized using "the faith community" to mobilize support for universal health care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people in need. His book, Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, emphasized that "We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right."
Now compare this to what the Bishops have said.

"Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care,'" they say. They go on, "For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans. We seek to bring a moral perspective in an intensely political debate; we offer an ethical framework in an arena dominated by powerful economic interests."

Reform, the Bishops said, would "require concerted action by federal and other levels of government and by the diverse providers and consumers of health care. We believe government, an instrument of our common purpose called to pursue the common good, has an essential role to play in assuring that the rights of all people to adequate health care are respected."

Also this: "For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans."

The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House. That's when the first deal was made. This was the deal that made all other deals possible. Acting at the behest of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Catholic Bishops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a vote on the pro-life amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak. It passed and then the bill itself was approved.
But why did Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment if they opposed the basic premise of the bill? House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner got his marching orders as well. He was told by Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that the Republicans shouldn't scuttle the Stupak amendment.

The Senate then proceeded to pass its own version of the legislation, without the Stupak language. Predictably, Stupak is complaining about that. But he-and the Democrats and Republicans who voted for his amendment-only have themselves to blame. At least five lobbyists for the Bishops worked with Pelosi and Stupak on the deal that is now also predictably falling apart. Clearly, the pro-life deal was a ploy designed to keep the legislation alive.

It has become apparent to some observers that the Bishops want the legislation to pass, with or without abortion language, because of its perceived impact on 600 Catholic hospitals. As they say in their own document, "Catholic dioceses, parishes, schools, agencies, and hospitals are major purchasers of insurance and health care. The rapidly escalating costs of coverage are impacting almost every diocese, agency, parish, and school."

In other words, the Bishops see national health care legislation as a way to reduce their own costs. In addition, by expanding federally-subsidized health care to as many as 30 million people, many of whom might normally depend on Catholic hospitals for inexpensive or free care, the Catholic Bishops could save even more money.

Andrew P. Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, has written a very revealing article about what has been missing in the debate over health care. He writes, "In the continually harsh public discourse over the President's proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing."

Rights come from God, not government, Napolitano points out.

It would have been nice if it had been pointed out on Fox News and elsewhere that the Catholic Bishops who claim to be offering a "moral perspective" on this controversy have bought into the false premise. But they didn't believe it to be false, and that is the critical point.

In short, the Catholic Bishops have emerged as a major "progressive" force in the United States, determined to saddle the country with a socialized medicine scheme. The disagreements over abortion among the "Big Government progressives" should not distract our attention from this basic fact. The Bishops also favor "climate change" legislation and amnesty for illegal aliens.

In addition to the lobbyists who were working on Capitol Hill, the bishops have a staff of 350 in Washington, D.C. and operate on a budget that was estimated back in 2002 at $131 million a year. By contrast, the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress operates on about $48 million a year.

Ironically, we have also discovered that Soros, an atheist, is putting big money into various Catholic organizations, such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Not surprisingly, it is backing the health care legislation.

"Sadly, the bishops have misunderstood the entire process, and now we will all pay," one conservative Catholic blogger points out. "They thought they could influence our lawmakers to provide us a 'clean' government takeover of the nation's health care system, 'clean' in the sense they hoped this 'reform' would include strong conscience protections while defunding abortion, without objecting to the basic premise of unprecedented government growth."

It is interesting and newsworthy that, as the nation prepares to celebrate Christmas, we are witnesses to the passage of legislation promoted in part by elements of the "faith community" who have put most of their faith in the federal government and its mammon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

Source: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/blame-the-bishops/

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Byrd showing up for crucial votes

Wednesday December 23, 2009

Senator's attendance at 59 percent for session, the lowest of any member

by Sara Gavin
Daily Mail Capitol Reporter

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As members of the U.S. Senate race against the clock to pass historic health care legislation in time for Christmas, Sen. Robert Byrd has been there to cast his critical vote on the controversial issue.

Byrd's staff members say the 92-year-old senator plans to see the measure through until the bitter end.

A final vote on the Senate version of the health care bill is scheduled to take place as early as Thursday morning.

Democrats are striving to make sure every single member of their party participates in the health care votes. The 40 Republicans are unified in their opposition to the health care bill, and Democrats have had trouble corralling all 60 votes needed to fend off procedural delays.

But throughout this first year of the current congressional session, Byrd's participation on the Senate floor has been noticeably sparse as compared to years past.

Statistics provided by a washingtonpost.com database show Byrd has cast a total of 229 votes this year and missed 159. His attendance currently stands at 59 percent for the session, the lowest among current Senate members.

"Obviously it's of concern," said political analyst Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

"You only have two senators, and you want them there for as many votes as possible. But it's also true that the party leadership is bringing Byrd in for the critical votes, the votes where he makes a difference."

Byrd's office declined to comment on whether Democratic Party leaders are indicating when they need for the senator to weigh in.

During the month of December, Byrd has cast 15 votes and missed 20. He voted along party lines in each of those 15 instances, and the vast majority of the decisions were close contests.

In recent years Byrd has logged a strong attendance record in the Senate. Between 2007 and 2009, he missed a total of 65 votes, showing up more than 90 percent of the time. Between 2005 and 2007, he missed just 17 votes, with an attendance record of 97.4 percent.

Sabato says most senators try to maintain voting attendance records above 90 percent.

"But I'm guessing if a poll were taken, most West Virginians would still take Byrd at 59 percent rather than a freshman senator at 90 percent," he said. "Robert Byrd has been number one in bringing home the bacon."

It's no secret that Byrd, the longest-serving member of either house of Congress in the nation's history, has struggled with illness and injuries over the past year. He was hospitalized in the late spring and summer due to a string of infections that kept him out of commission for several months.

The Associated Press
Sen. Robert Byrd is wheeled from the Senate after a series of votes on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday.

It's no secret that Byrd, the longest-serving member of either house of Congress in the nation's history, has struggled with illness and injuries over the past year. He was hospitalized in the late spring and summer due to a string of infections that kept him out of commission for several months.

In September, the senator needed time to recuperate after a fall at his home, again causing him to miss dozens of votes during the healing process.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller currently has the second lowest voting attendance record at 85 percent, according to washingtonpost.com. Rockefeller also struggled with injuries earlier this year and underwent knee surgery in April.

Byrd communications director Jesse Jacobs reported earlier this week that the senator is in "fine" health and planning to spend the impending holidays with his family and his dog, Trouble, once the health care votes are finished.

Sabato says it's clear that as he ages, Byrd isn't enjoying the same level of influence he once held among his colleagues.

"He clearly has a diminished role simply because he doesn't have the energy level to be there all the time, and a lot of the Senate's work is done behind the scenes," said Sabato. "I'm sure they all wish, as he does, that he were 30 years younger, but he's not."

However, Sabato believes most West Virginians are willing to put up with Byrd's spotty attendance and doesn't expect to see the nonagenarian step down from his post anytime soon.

"He has mental faculties sufficient to continue. That's obvious when you watch him on the floor. If his mental faculties were dim, that would be a different story."

Contact writer Sara Gavin at sara.ga...@dailymail.com or 304-348-5148.

.
Source:http://www.dailymail.com/News/200912220658?page=1&build=cache
.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Parallels of the Federal Reserve Act and the Health Care Overhaul Putsch

Federal Reserve Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is the act of Congress that created the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, which was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

P.S. Deja vu? Everyone's in a rush to go home and "celebrate";
Climate Change NorEaster Blizzard of 2009, etc.

"Everything's is on track, to pass the piece of legislation on christmas eve..."

Mary Christmas!

Federal employees in Wash. D.C. will have the day off because of the snow storm; Yet, Harry Reid and Der Politbüro will carry on with their agenda...

ALERT: HARRY REID SCHEDULES FIRST OBAMA-CARE VOTE FOR 1 A.M. MONDAY

By Sarah Foster

Posted 1:00 AM Eastern

December 21, 2009© 2009 NewsWithViews.com

Watch Live: U.S. Senate Debates Health Care Insurance Overhaul

WASHINGTON – Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled 1 a.m. Monday for the first of several votes he needs to get his ObamaCare health bill passed by the Senate by Christmas Eve.
That’s “shortly after Sunday Night Football ends and most Americans are in bed,” says Dan Holler at the Heritage Foundation's blog, The Foundry.

Introduced Saturday morning, the senators will have had less than 38 hours to understand the 383-page manager's amendment to H.R. 3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Holler reports introduces several new concepts into the health care debate. For starters:

Read whole article:

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news179.htm

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Fight Over Finance Oversight, and Bernanke, Gets Hotter

Joseph Schuman

Fight Over Finance Oversight, and Bernanke, Gets Hotter
Posted:
12/2/09

(Dec. 2) -- The fight to tame U.S. oversight of banks and Wall Street heated up Wednesday and now looks likely to dominate this week's hearing on the renomination of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The House Financial Services Committee voted 31-27 along party lines to send an overhaul of financial regulation to the floor of the House for debate next week, a victory for chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., but not a complete one. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted the vote, saying they want greater financial help for their communities amid all the fiscal stimulus measures of the past year. Those votes -- the caucus includes 41 representatives -- could be pivotal when the bill is put to a vote by the full House.

Perhaps the most controversial part of the bill, dubbed the Financial Stability Act, would increase congressional oversight of the Fed by broadening the Government Accountability Office's authority over the Fed's financial operations. Critics of the bill argue that any increase in political supervision of the Fed would weaken the U.S. central bank's credibility. Proponents say that credibility was already undercut more by the failure of the Fed and other agencies to foresee and prevent the subprime-mortgage meltdown that cascaded into a global recession.

Bernanke will likely be asked to address the matter himself on Thursday before the Senate banking committee, which is considering his nomination by President Obama to a second term as the country's chief financial steward. That hearing and any discussion of new restraints on the Fed were already expected to be animated, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made sure of that Wednesday evening.

Sanders placed a hold on the Bernanke nomination, faulting both the Fed chairman's role in the financial crisis and his chairmanship of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. "The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few," Sanders said. "What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy.

" The hold will likely delay the renomination, but Bernanke appears to have enough support from Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to keep his job. The tenor of Thursday's hearing could indicate which way it will go.

A host of financial-regulation reform bills under consideration in Congress have already been subjected to repeated rounds of disparagement and lobbying from financial firms, which object to a tighter leash but have been restrained in their public criticism by the economic pain and popular anger of the past year. On the other side of the fight, consumer advocates have vociferously called for greater regulation, and the Obama administration has made passage of a bill one of its top economic priorities.

But the shape of a final measure -- for both the House legislation and a similar measure in the Senate -- is far from clear and might not take form before next year.

The thrust of the House bill aims to strengthen oversight across the spectrum of the finance industries by creating a council, headed by the Treasury, that will seek to identify and address systemic risks in the marketplace that could lead to another financial crisis. It would consolidate authority of the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators to deal with crises, create new safeguards for insurance companies like AIG and other nonbanks -- so that none becomes "too big to fail" -- and force lenders to assume a greater portion of the risk in their loans rather than pass along all the risk to investors. The bill would also place limits on any future government bailouts.

The bill is likely to undergo changes by the full House, and if it passes there perhaps wholesale revision once the Senate finishes work on its version. Work on financial reform has stalled in the Senate Banking Committee, where Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is trying to get Republicans to contribute to and support his proposal.

Source: http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/02/fight-over-finance-oversight-and-bernanke-gets-hotter/#comments

Source:

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Senate health care bill creates new marriage penalty

Proposal packed with 17 new levies

By Stephen Dinan and David M. Dickson THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Democrats' health care bill would create a new marriage penalty by imposing a tax on individuals who make $200,000 annually but hitting married couples making just $50,000 more.

That's one of 17 new taxes imposed by the bill, which also creates a levy on elective plastic surgery - some call it "botax" - and places a 40 percent excise tax on those who have generous health care plans.

"If you have insurance, you get taxed. If you don't have insurance, you get taxed. If you need a life-saving medical device, you get taxed. If you need prescription medicines, you get taxed," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who is leading the fight against the bill.

The new taxes would be used to fund an expansion of government medical programs and to fund subsidies for lower-income individuals to buy insurance, extending health care coverage to 94 percent of eligible non-elderly Americans.

Democrats said the bill will offer lower health care costs for small businesses and families, and said the new taxes are aimed at upper-income earners, so costs would not go up for the middle class. They said that makes good on President Obama's campaign pledge not to increase taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, which explains the reason for the new marriage penalty.

"We wanted to make this provision consistent with the president's pledge not to increase taxes on singles making under $200,000 and married couples making under $250,000," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who wrote the Senate bill.

"Yes, this structure can create a 'marriage penalty' for some couples. It also creates a 'marriage bonus' for others," he said. "A married couple with one wage earner can earn up to $250,000 without facing this higher tax, whereas a single person in the same job with the same pay would be hit by it."

But a married couple in which each earner makes $150,000 would be hit with the tax, whereas an unmarried couple living together with the same incomes would not.

Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, said the new marriage penalty comes on top of an existing one that's always been part of the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare.

He said when the payroll tax was created to fund Social Security during the New Deal, lawmakers didn't anticipate the freelance of two-income families, so there's always been a sort of marriage penalty for couples whose incomes topped the single-earner income taxation level.

Such penalties have been thorny issues in the tax codes for years.

The new tax would rise from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent for singles making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Congress earlier this decade tried to reduce the marriage penalty in the income tax code by adjusting the standard deduction for single taxpayers and married couples and expanding the 15 percent tax bracket for couples filing joint tax returns.

Mr. Ellis said another problem with Democrats' plan is that the new payroll tax is not indexed for inflation, even though wage growth is about 5 percent a year. That means the tax will capture an ever-larger share of taxpayers.

"Fifteen years from now, someone who today is earning $100,000, if their wage growth just grows on average, 15 years from now they're going to be paying this tax," Mr. Ellis said.

The plastic surgery tax could increase the cost of nips and tucks by imposing a 5 percent tax on the cost of such surgeries. The tax is slated to go into effect Jan. 1 and is expected to raise $5.8 billion over 10 years. It would cover all elective procedures, whether covered by insurance or not, but would not be levied on surgeries intended to repair personal injuries.

Some of the taxes are already running into political trouble with Democrats' core supporters.

The Teamsters union on Thursday blasted the proposal to impose a 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" high-value health insurance plans, saying it would threaten the benefit-rich coverage unions have fought hard to win for their workers.

"Any claim that it affects only 'Cadillac' plans and thus the wealthy is misleading," said Teamsters President James P. Hoffa Jr. "This tax will fall on one-third of Americans in 10 years. ... The idea that this tax will curtail rising premiums is just dead wrong."

The tax is slated to go into effect in 2013 and would apply to individual policies worth $8,500 or family policies worth $23,000. A slightly higher threshold would apply for early retirees and those in high-risk professions.

Budget analysts said they expect that employers and consumers will start to ditch the high-value plans and instead pay the money to workers in higher wages and salaries, so most of the nearly $150 billion in revenue on which Democrats are counting from the provision would come from higher income taxes.

"Put a tax on my high-premium health plan and suddenly it's not such a good deal," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "I'd rather have the cash."

Several relatively small tax increases will be aimed at health savings accounts and medical savings accounts. One will change the definitions for medical expenses that qualify as itemized deductions. Another will raise the penalties for withdrawing funds from these vehicles. A third would limit health-related flexible spending arrangements.

"All of these changes are designed to make health savings accounts less attractive and cripple consumer-directed health care plans," said Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Altogether, they would raise about $20 billion through 2019.

Jennifer Haberkorn and S.A. Miller contributed to this report.

Source: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/20/married-couples-face-tax-in-senate-health-care-bil/