Tag Archive: republicans


Reblogged from thesurvivalplaceblog:

Click to visit the original post

Harry Reid said on Tuesday he hopes have a bill to address gun violence on the Senate floor soon after the Easter break. He also confirmed that measure will not include an assault weapons ban.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters Tuesday she is disappointed that her assault weapons ban will not be part of a larger bill, but acknowledged it will likely make it easier to pass gun-related legislation through the Senate.

Read more… 194 more words

Democrats abandon proposed assault weapons ban

Published time: March 19, 2013 23:07
RT
Reuters / Joshua Lott
Reuters / Joshua Lott
With the US Senate set to mull new gun legislation this April, a proposed ban on assault weapons will no longer be up for debate, the proposal's sponsors say. As a result, the ban is almost surely off the table for inclusion in a new law. California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who promoted the ban, told the press that Nevada's Harry Reid made the concession with a view to avoiding Republican sabotage. Leaving out the assault weapons ban, she reasoned, would prevent the debate on gun control from being blocked by Republicans before it even began. "I very much regret it," Feinstein, who wrote the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired ten years later, said of the decision. "I tried my best." Instead of debating a ban on military-style weapons up front, Feinstein will propose the measure as an amendment once legislation is in order. The ban could be on thin ice as it faces near-certain rejection from Republicans across the board as well as some Democrats. A ban would need 60 votes to even be in the running for legislative action. The Senate is home to 53 Democrats, as well as two independents who can be relied upon to vote to the left. But even "Using the most optimistic numbers," Reid said, the ban would receive fewer than 40 votes. "I'm not going to try to put something on the floor that won't succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring to something to the floor and it dies there," Reid said. Read Full Article Here
About these ads

President Obama said Friday that even though the $85 billion in federal spending cuts are “going to hurt,” the country will get through it. NBC’s Chuck Todd reports.

By Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News
Obama: Sequester ‘not going to be an apocalypse’
March
1

Lamenting the idea that only a “Jedi mind meld” could prod the GOP into compromise, President Barack Obama said Friday that the “dumb” automatic across-the-board cuts taking effect Friday are the fault of Republican resistance to a reasonable deal to avert the sequestration’s budget reductions.

“I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington,” Obama told reporters after meeting with congressional leaders. “Even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree that I am presenting a fair deal —  the fact that [Republicans] don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right,” he said.

Obama spoke hours before signing an order officially enacting the cuts, which take effect at midnight Friday.

Asked why leaders did not negotiate more vigorously to get a deal before sequestration deadline day, Obama said that his ability to negotiate is limited by Congress’s unwillingness.

“I’m not a dictator,” he said. “I’m the president. So ultimately if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say ‘I need to go to catch a plane,’ I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway, right?”

Obama acknowledged that the sequester’s effects will be painful but predicted that the cuts will be manageable by a resilient American people.

 

Read Full Article  and  Watch Video Here

 

As Obama signs the order, sequester is enacted

By Carrie Dann, Staff Writer, NBC News

It’s official.

Late Friday evening, President Barack Obama signed an order – as required by the “sequester” legislation – to enact broad cuts to federal spending, according to a White House release.

Those cuts will now officially go into effect at midnight Friday.

The low-key statement, unaccompanied even by a White House-authorized photo of the signing, comes after weeks of finger-pointing with little urgency from Democrats or Republicans to avert the cuts.

In the week leading up to Friday’s deadline, Obama administration had warned of the consequences of the sequester, with Cabinet officials taking to the airwaves and the president hitting the road to highlight the measure’s effect on jobs, education, and even delays for air travelers.

On Friday, Obama acknowledged that while the cuts will be “painful,” they won’t be completely catastrophic.

“We will get through this,” he said. “This is not going to be an apocalypse, I think, as some people have said. It’s just dumb. And it’s going to hurt.”

By Laura Litvan – Feb 26, 2013 5:14 PM CT

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Chuck Hagel, nominee for U.S. secretary of defense, speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington on Jan. 31, 2013.

The Senate confirmed Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, after weeks of partisan acrimony over President Barack Obama’s choice to head the Pentagon in a time of budget-cutting and evolving threats from terrorism to cyber warfare.

The nomination was approved on a 58-41 vote hours after the Senate acted to limit debate, cutting off the first filibuster against a nominee for defense secretary. The former Republican senator from Nebraska, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, will replace retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

“I will be counting on Chuck’s judgment and counsel as we end the war in Afghanistan, bring our troops home, stay ready to meet the threats of our time and keep our military the finest fighting force in the world,” Obama said in an e-mailed statement.

Hagel, 66, will become the Pentagon’s leader as across-the- board spending cuts called sequestration are set to take $46 billion from military budgets over seven months and $500 billion over a decade, starting March 1, unless Obama and Congress agree on an alternative.

Republicans, who have criticized Hagel for his past positions — from his opposition to the troop surge during the Iraq war to his comments on the influence of what he once called the “Jewish lobby” — were readying for new fights with Hagel as the steward of the Pentagon’s diminishing funds.

McCain’s Criticism

“There are those of us who seek to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from the Department of Defense,” Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said this month during floor debate. “Senator Hagel seeks something else entirely — to cut military capabilities that serve as tools to ensure our continued engagement through the world in support of America’s interests and those of our allies.”

Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader, said Hagel’s abilities are widely recognized. Hagel has been endorsed by 13 former secretaries of defense, state, and national security advisers of both parties, he pointed out.

“Men who have had that responsibility trust Chuck Hagel, and so do I,” Durbin said today.

Republicans said Hagel has been weakened by the confirmation process. No defense secretary has been confirmed with more than 11 votes in opposition, said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican leader.

“He will take office with the weakest support of any defense secretary in modern history, which will make him less effective in his job,” Cornyn said.

 

Read Full Article Here

Journalist rips ‘pro-life’ Republicans for seeking to cut infant nutrition program

By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, February 18, 2013 23:53 EST
The Raw Story
David Cay Johnston screenshot

 

While discussing the looming sequestration on MSNBC, journalist David Cay Boyle Johnston slammed Republicans for supporting cuts to a federal program that provides food to the infants of poor mothers.

“Six hundred thousand pregnant women and mothers of small children will be cut from the [Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program],” he said. “The Republicans are always telling us about their reverence for life. Really? They are going to have 600,000 poor women and children not have proper food.”

“There is a lifetime effect on development, especially mental development, if you don’t have proper nutrition in the womb and when you’re an infant, but they are determined to cut those poor children — who are helpless — out of good nutrition.”
Read Full Article and Watch Video Here

Are  you  kidding  me?  This is  right on  up there  with the  remarks  stating that pregnancy as a  result  of  rape  was inmpossible because the  woman’s body  had  the means to  shut itself  down and  prevent  pregnancy  as a  rsult of a true rape.  Once  again criminalizing the  victim.  Where  will the  idiocy end?

It is one thing  to be  opposed  to  abortion  because one was just  too lazy or ignorant  to  use  birth  control.  It is , however , a  whole other matter  to  force  the  victim  of an  attack  such as  rape or  incest  to carry  a pregnancy  full term and  deem it  State Evidence!!

 Perhaps if the system  was not  so  corrupt and  inept  then  there  could  be legitimate  and  intelligent   dialogue  on the  subject.  But  the  efficacy  of the  system is  apalling and  severly  lacking  both in  proper  care for unwanted  children and  counseling  for  women  who are   having  trouble  with  unplanned  pregnancies.    More  support  is  needed , more  action and  less  lip service  has  always  gotten the  job  done.  Calling a fetus a  child is not the  answer.  Making laws  and  establishing  a  system that  will properly  care  for  that  child  is the  key  here.  You  cannot  ask of  others  what  you are  unwilling to do  yourselves….PERIOD!!

~Desert Rose~

 

*********************************************************************************

 

Laura Bassett
Huffington Post
Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:34 CST

New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R) is the author of the bill and one its sponsors.

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for “tampering with evidence.”

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime,” the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

By Michael O’Brien, NBC News

President Barack Obama ratcheted up pressure on congressional Republicans to authorize an increase in the nation’s debt limit, warning of potentially catastrophic results for many Americans and the overall economy if the U.S. were to default on its obligations.

“The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills,” Obama said at a press conference on Monday, the last of his first term in office. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”

Jason Reed / Reuters

President Barack Obama is reflected in a mirror as he speaks during a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Jan. 14, 2013.

Anticipating a politically bruising fight this spring with the GOP – members of which in Congress have increasingly and openly discussed the prospect of refusing to raise the debt ceiling or allowing a government shutdown – Obama urged lawmakers to avoid using the vote over the debt limit as a point of leverage.

And the president sought to frame the risks of default in stark terms. He warned markets would go “haywire” if Congress would not act; Obama said that interest rates would rise, and checks to Social Security beneficiaries and military veterans would cease.

But as some Democrats urge the administration to consider options to sidestep Congress and assert the authority to unilaterally authorize more borrowing, Obama all but ruled out these sorts of “Plan B” options.

“If the House and the Senate wants to give me the authority so they don’t have to take these tough votes… I’m happy to take it,” he said. But, Obama added: “There are no magic tricks here, no loopholes. There’s no easy way out.”

 

Read Full Article Here

By Ramsey Cox
The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday said it is likely too late for Congress to pull the nation back from the “fiscal cliff.”

Speaking on the Senate floor, Reid castigated Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for sending members of the House back to their districts last week after he was forced to scrap his “Plan B” tax plan for lack of support.

The Democratic leader said that even if Boehner agreed to hold a vote extending the Bush tax rates for incomes up to $250,000 — as Democrats have demanded to avoid one part of the fiscal cliff — it might not make it through Congress in time to prevent tax increases from beginning next year.

 

“I have to be honest — I don’t know, time-wise, how it can happen now,” Reid said.

Boehner said last week that he would give members of the House 48 hours notice if they needed to return for a vote on fiscal matters, but GOP leaders have yet to give the order for them to return.

“[Boehner] should call them back today — he shouldn’t have let them go, in fact,” Reid said.

Senators arrived back at the Capitol on Thursday with time running out to reach an agreement on a slew of tax increases and automatic spending cuts that are set to begin in January.

Boehner last week said it was up to President Obama and Senate Democrats to find a solution to the fiscal cliff, and on Wednesday reiterated that the upper chamber must act first.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

 

How The ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Affects You

fiscal cliff

The clock is ticking to stop tax hikes and spending cuts threatening your wallet.

By: WSPA Staff, Associated Press, CBS News | WSPA-TV

WASHINGTON –

 

Local impact of fiscal cliff talks

The clock is ticking to stop tax hikes and spending cuts threatening your wallet.

President Obama is back inWashingtontrying to hammer out a last-minute deal to avoid the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’.

If a plan isn’t approved by Jan. 1, economists say it could be a rough fall for the average family.

“If we revert back to Clinton-era tax rates, anyone who is paying income taxes will see their rates going up,” said Tom Smythe, a business professor atFurmanUniversity.

So how will the fiscal cliff impact you?

A household making $50,000 annually will see their income taxes increase $1,000 to $1,500 per year, according to Smythe.

But that’s not all.  The payroll tax extension is also set to expire.  It funds social security, and that means another tax hike of $1,000 per year for the average family.

“In total, if nothing happens, people with incomes of $50,000 will see their taxes rise on the order of about $2,000 to $2,500,” Smythe said.

7 On Your Side caught up with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham Thursday before he left forWashingtonto get his take on the impending fiscal cliff.

“If we can’t find a fix from now until January, whatever we do will be retroactive for middle class tax payers,” said Sen. Graham.

Economists believe the fiscal cliff could even cost people their jobs.

For example, Smythe says if a deal isn’t reached, the Department of Defense will lose a big chunk of its budget.  The DOD has contracts with various companies, including Lockheed Martin which has a facility inGreenvilleCounty.

“It is a hidden cost of the political process right now,” says Smythe.  “Most companies have stockpiled lots and lots of cash on their balance sheets very specifically because they don’t know what the financial landscape is going to look like post Jan. 1.  Until that gets resolved, companies are going to hold back cash.”

 

Read Full Article Here

By Sam Baker
The Hill

2013 will be a big year for President Obama’s signature healthcare law.

By next New Year’s, almost all of the law’s major provisions are scheduled to be fully in effect. And that means 2013 will represent a mad dash to get ready — both in the states and in the Health and Human Services Department.

In addition to the intensive preparation for 2014, next year will see several key provisions take effect, among them some of the law’s most controversial provisions, including new taxes that will hit millions of employees.

And though congressional Republicans have largely acknowledged they won’t be able to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act, they’re focusing on intense oversight and hoping for targeted repeal votes on a handful of specific provisions, some of which have garnered bipartisan support.

Here are five important provisions to keep an eye on in 2013:

Exchanges

There’s supposed to be an exchange up and running in every state by Jan. 1, 2014, so 2013 is crunch time for implementing the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act. The healthcare law envisions each state setting up its own exchange, but Republican governors have taken a hard line against implementing any part of “ObamaCare,” meaning the federal government will have to handle the task itself in at least 20 states.

Officials from the Health and Human Services Department say they’ll be ready, but it’s a massive undertaking. First, HHS has to build a data hub to serve all 50 state exchanges, processing applications, determining eligibility and administering tax subsidies available to those who will buy coverage through an exchange. The Obama administration also has to fend off a lawsuit challenging the scope of those subsidies.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

 

By Julian Pecquet and Daniel Strauss

In a letter to Obama notifying him of her decision, Rice said she wanted to spare the White House a heated battle with Senate Republicans, who have criticized her over the administration’s handling of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly — to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” she wrote. “That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country.”

Obama had stood steadfastly by his ambassador to the UN over the past three months, calling out Republican senators who criticized her.

But, on Thursday, he finally acknowledged that a bitter partisan fight was not worth having.

“I have every confidence that Susan has limitless capability to serve our country now and in the years to come, and know that I will continue to rely on her as an advisor and friend,” he said in a statement. “While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first.”

Rice’s decision leaves Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) as the favorite to replace Hillary Clinton, who has vowed to step down early next year. Kerry was believed to be in the running for secretary of Defense, but that role now looks likely to go to former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).Kerry praised Rice in statement Thursday evening.

“I’ve known and worked closely with Susan Rice not just at the UN, but in my own campaign for President. I’ve defended her publicly and wouldn’t hesitate to do so again because I know her character and I know her commitment,” he said.

“We should all be grateful that she will continue to serve and contribute at the highest level. As someone who has weathered my share of political attacks and understands on a personal level just how difficult politics can be, I’ve felt for her throughout these last difficult weeks, but I also know that she will continue to serve with great passion and distinction.”

 

 

Read Full Article Here

 

Michigan weakens union rights in home of auto industry

By Bernie Woodall

LANSING, Michigan

 

As more than 12,000 unionized workers and supporters protested at the Capitol in Lansing, the Republican-led state House of Representatives gave final approval to a pair of “right-to-work” bills covering public- and private-sector unions.

Republican Governor Rick Snyder signed the bills into law as soon as they reached his desk, completing in a few days a campaign to make Michigan the 24th U.S. state to prohibit unions from requiring employees to join and contribute dues.

“I view this as an opportunity to stand up for Michigan’s workers, to be pro-worker,” Snyder told a news conference after he signed the bills.

The laws will take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, which means they will probably come into force sometime in April. Existing union contracts will not be changed until they expire, according to a provision of the laws.

In a rapid turn of events, Michigan moved from being a bastion of union influence to joining states, mostly in the South, that have weakened local protections for unions.

The Teamsters union national president, James Hoffa, whose father, Jimmy Hoffa, was one of the nation’s most famous labor leaders until he disappeared in 1975 in Michigan, denounced Republican leaders in a speech to the protesters.

“Let me tell the governor and all those elected officials who vote for this shameful, divisive bill – there will be repercussions,” Hoffa said, adding the Republicans could be defeated in the next election.

Unions have accused Snyder of caving in to wealthy Republican business owners and political donors such as the Koch brothers, owners of an energy and trading conglomerate, and Richard DeVos, the co-founder of Michigan-based Amway.

Snyder, a former computer company executive who had said “right-to-work” legislation was too divisive for Michigan, changed course last week and announced his support for it.

While labor leaders decried the legislation, Republican Representative Lisa Lyons said during the debate in the House that such laws were not an attack on unions.

“This is the day Michigan freed its workers,” she said.

Opponents argue that the measures undermine a basic union tenet of bargaining collectively with employers for better wages, benefits and working conditions. They also allow workers to opt out of a union, potentially reducing membership.

By weakening unions, Republicans also could hurt the Democratic Party, which traditionally receives a significant portion of its funding and grass-roots support from unions.

Supporters of right-to-work measures say some unions have become too rigid and workers should be given a choice of whether to join. They also say a more flexible labor market encourages business investment, citing “right-to-work” states where some foreign automakers have put plants rather than in Michigan.

CRIES OF ‘SHAME’

The measures were approved to cries of “shame” from protesters inside the Capitol building, which was closed to visitors when it reached capacity of 2,200, Michigan State Police Inspector Gene Adamczyk said.

An estimated 10,000 more people demonstrated outside in cold and snowy conditions, including members of the United Auto Workers union, and teachers, who shut down several schools in the state to attend the rally.

A few protesters were ejected from the Capitol after they chanted slogans from the gallery during the debate. Protesters tore down two tents set up for supporters of “right-to-work” on the grounds of the Capitol. Adamczyk said six people were arrested after scuffling with officers.

A mixture of pepper spray and tear gas was used on one person, Adamczyk said, although Reuters journalists also saw protesters sprayed with a substance at a government building near the Capitol.

The protests recalled big rallies in Wisconsin nearly two years ago when Republicans voted to curb public-sector unions. Wisconsin never tried to pass “right-to-work” bills.

But Indiana earlier this year became the first state in the industrial Midwest to approve “right-to-work” legislation and several other states are watching the Michigan action closely.

LEGAL CHALLENGES LOOM

Republicans in Michigan were also emboldened by the defeat in the November election of a ballot initiative backed by unions that would have enshrined the right to collective bargaining in the state constitution.

Michigan is home of the heavily unionized U.S. auto industry, with some 700 manufacturing plants in the state. The state has the fifth highest percentage of workers who are union members, at 17.5 percent

The Detroit area is headquarters for General Motors Co, Ford Motor Co and Chrysler, which is majority-owned by Fiat SpA.

The UAW was founded in Michigan after a 1932 protest at a Ford plant in Dearborn left five people dead, increasing public sympathy for industrial workers during the Great Depression and leading to national legislation protecting unions.

Major automakers, which secured concessions from the UAW after nearly going bankrupt during the recession of 2008-09, were careful not to take sides publicly in the fight.

All of the so-called Big Three domestic automakers said they were “neutral” on “right-to-work,” even though the Michigan Chamber of Commerce strongly supports it.

“At Ford, we are focused on working with all our partners, including the UAW,” the company said in a statement on Tuesday.

Democrats and unions have vowed to challenge the new laws in the courts, to try to overturn them in a ballot initiative and possibly oust through recall elections some Republicans who voted for the measures.

Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss said “right-to-work” laws would lead to a resumption of the battles surrounding the creation of unions decades ago.

“There will be fights on the shop floor if many workers announce they will not pay union dues,” Geiss said.

(Additional reporting by Robert Carr, David Bailey and Deepa Seetharaman; Editing by Greg McCune and Peter Cooney)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 719 other followers