And a well-deserved veto it would be.
Holy Crap, Batman! Look at the numbers!
$46B added to the deficit in order to create 100K jobs. That’s $460,000/job. That’s likely 10 to 15 times the salary of the jobs created. There is no possibility that this would generate enough new revenues to pay for the cuts, even if the new jobs were taxed at 100%.
Cutting taxes for 22M “small” businesses to create 100K jobs means only 1 job would be created for every 220 businesses getting a tax cut – and that’s if the republican best-case scenario proves true.
I think that Eric Cantor and I have radically different definitions of “potent economic stimulus”. This is designed to be incredibly inefficient, ineffective, and wasteful as a “jobs” program.
Could the lies be any more blatant? Promoting this as a “jobs” bill is an insult to the intelligence of every American, and a clear demonstration that republicans are fiscally irresponsible in ideology and practice. After all, they can blame President Obama for not signing it, or the Senate Democrats for not passing it, and never face responsibility for passing it. I expect them to accuse the Democrats of playing politics in stopping this moment of insanity.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
- Cantor ‘Puzzled’ That Obama Would Threaten To Veto The Latest GOP Tax Cut For Millionaires (thinkprogress.org)
- House passes small biz tax cut (politico.com)
- House Of Representatives Approves Cantor’s $46 Billion Tax Giveaway (thinkprogress.org)
- Eric Cantor Touts Analysis Concluding That His Tax Giveaway Would Cost $1.1 Million Per Job (thinkprogress.org)
- House will vote today on tax cuts for NASCAR/NFL team owners (dailykos.com)
Damage control? How about a little introspection and root cause analysis. I’ll help you get started:
- You put a political activist in a position of authority.
- You let her use SGK for political purposes, attacking women’s health.
- You offered excuses that were not credible.
- You only took corrective action when that didn’t work.
You broke a trust, which will take a lot of work over a long time to earn back.
So what do you do? You hire a PR firm stupid enough to distribute a questionnaire asking how best to play people. Their questions alone make SGK appear even more callous and disingenuous than ever. And more untrustworthy.
To quote Tank Girl:
“Now you’re workin’ my tits.”
Stop thinking like a business and start thinking like a humanitarian organization!
Modify your charter to prohibit political activism. Limit political advocacy to promoting women’s health issues.
If you want to assess damage, don’t just try to schmooze the big donors. Keep an eye on event participation levels. All your support begins at ground level. If you lose the feet on the ground, well, don’t think you’re irreplaceable.
My answer to your questionnaire. Now go learn to be a conservatism survivor.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
- Don’t ask how to apologize – Do it! The Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood Controversy (prdefied.wordpress.com)
- Susan G. Komen Puts Politics Before Purpose (triplepundit.com)
- Pink Hypocrisy: Susan G. Komen Yanks Funding from Planned Parenthood (ecosalon.com)
- Susan G. Komen officials resign in protest (piedtype.com)
- Handel resignation from Komen draws swift reaction on social media – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
- Susan G. Komen’s “Abortionplex” PR Nightmare (femination.wordpress.com)
By rejecting their constitutional responsibilities to provide advice and consent on these nominations, by substituting extreme obstruction for reasons unrelated to the qualifications and merits of the individual nominee, by doing this for pure political brinksmanship, the republicans have created a constitutional crisis.
They have defied the constitution to the point that the government therein defined can no longer function. President Obama took drastic action to minimize the damage, but this particular crisis will persist as long as conservative extremists remain in the Senate in sufficient numbers to sustain a filibuster.
The filibuster was never meant to be used as the republicans are using it. It is supposed to be a lever, not a straightjacket.
The oath to support and defend the Constitution carries the implied oath to support “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States”. Even the ones republicans hate.
Without that support, we are not a nation of laws. Without that support, we do not have a constitutional government.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What I have been wondering is why Reid and the other Democrats have been going along with the pro-forma sessions in the first place. If they refused to not recess, and the House wanted to, then there would be disagreement between the two and Article II sec. 3 could be invoked. This would let the President dictate the time of recess and reconvening.
The Wall Street Journal opinion piece passes out the business-centric blinders.
“No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year’s tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.”
True, but not the point of the exercise. Employers will hire when they see customers with money coming their way – which is the point of the tax holiday: Putting more money in consumer pockets. Wasn’t it the republicans who said that people know best how to spend their own money? Conservatives consistently devalue the necessity of funding the demand side of supply and demand. Instead, they are aggressively working to weaken the economic foundation of the middle class.
“Their first mistake was adopting the President’s language that he is proposing a tax cut rather than calling it a temporary tax holiday. People will understand the difference—and discount the benefit.”
So people will understand when it comes time to end the Bush “tax holiday” for the rich?
“Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter, although he’s spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013. This should be impossible.”
Except that Obama44 has been cutting taxes. The “tax holiday” in question is only one example. Conservatives keep changing the definitions. Either the House republicans have voted for a middle-class tax increase, or we need to end one of the largest unfunded tax holidays ever.
Conservatives are nibbling at the edges of doublethink. The Obama44 cuts to payroll taxes and the Bush43 income tax cuts to income taxes are both temporary cuts. There is one notable difference between the two though. The Obama cuts are being paid for – how is a major point of contention. The Bush43 cuts went straight to the national debt.
The President and the Democrats want the rich to pay for extending the payroll tax cuts, and put some of that idle money back in circulation as an economic stimulus. The republicans want the middle class and poor to pay for it, which would negate the simulative effect and hurt the economy in the long term. Redistribution of wealth at its most ineffective.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
- Republicans lose the Wall Street Journal on tax cut ‘fiasco’ (dailykos.com)
- WSJ: GOP botched tax debate (thehill.com)
- How the Republicans lost the upper hand in payroll tax debate – Washington Post (blog) (washingtonpost.com)
- House GOP takes beating over payroll tax (cbsnews.com)
- House Passes Bill… for New Churchill Bust (newser.com)
- GOP senator says Republicans need to resolve payroll tax fight and ‘move on’ (thehill.com)
- Romney Boldly Refuses To Take Sides On Payroll Tax Holiday (alan.com)
Regulation is as necessary as traffic law. While I have seen some silly traffic laws, I don’t think that any responsible person would propose getting rid of all traffic law as a consequence.
Every regulation is a reminder that businesses bear no responsibility toward the public good. That responsibility lies with the people, through their official instrument: the government.
A bad regulation is a regulation that fails to protect the public interest. A regulation is not properly measured by if or how much it impedes commerce, but whether or not that impediment promotes or fails to promote the general welfare.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This Bill has already failed, but it illustrates how the priorities of the republicans stray from the priorities of the country. It also serves as a commentary on the technical competence of knee-jerk legislation.
[Congressional Bills 112th Congress][From the U.S. Government Printing Office][H.R. 2417 Introduced in House (IH)]112th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 2417To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Actwith respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes._______________________________________________________________________IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJuly 6, 2011Mr. Barton of Texas (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Flores,Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Turner, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Lummis, Mrs. Capito, Mr.Scalise, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr.Poe of Texas, and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas) introduced thefollowing bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy andCommerce_______________________________________________________________________A BILLTo repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Actwith respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of theUnited States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the “Better Use of Light Bulbs Act”.SEC. 2. LIGHTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.(a) In General.–Sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independenceand Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) are repealed.(b) Application.–The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.6201 et seq.) shall be applied and administered as if sections 321 and322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (and theamendments made by those sections) had not been enacted.SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING.No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regardingenergy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that therequirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or usinglamps containing mercury.SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION.No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning theenergy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general serviceincandescent lamps shall be effective.SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.In this Act, the terms “general service incandescent lamp”,“lamp”, and “medium screw base” have the meanings given those termspursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 etseq.), as applied and administered pursuant to section 2.<all>
- With the development of full-spectrum LED lights, this section is rendered useless. LED lights can meet any requirement of standard that florescent lights could. The exception would be for ballast requirements that have nothing to do with bulb choice.
- Supposed protection from mercury in the bulbs (less than a thermometer’s worth) would be more than offset by the extra coal ash generated. Coal ash contains mercury, some of which goes into the air. Light bulbs containing mercury must be recycled, they cannot be put in the trash. The whole mercury-in-landfill argument is false.
- It explicitly prohibits state or local government from setting a higher standard. Setting a minimum national standard is one thing, preventing the states from improving on it is another thing entirely.
“There’s a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly,” said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. “There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”
“Due to the 2007 federal energy bill that phases out inefficient incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012, we are finally seeing a race” to develop more efficient ones, said Noah Horowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
By Mr. BARTON of Texas:H.R. 2417.Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
[The Congress shall have Power] “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
[The Congress shall have Power] “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
- Rep. Rush Holt: Shining Light on the BULB Act (huffingtonpost.com)
- BULB act sheds light on the politics of the new Republican Party (thehill.com)
- Why Fighting Energy-Efficient Lightbulbs Is So Stupid (ecocentric.blogs.time.com)
- dirty electricity and unhealthy CFL light bulbs (ees2001.wordpress.com)
We have seen this before. The images were different, but the intent to denigrate was the same. The “sense of humor” was the same. And the excuses were the same. The counter-accusations were the same. The pursuit of the whistle-blower, the refusal to consider that they may have been wrong, the refusal to consider the possibility that they should resign for the good of their cause. Pride and arrogance control them.
“I only sent it to a few people–mostly people I didn’t think would be upset by it.”
Admitting that there are others who think like her is not going to help their efforts to build a non-racist image. Every cause attracts it’s loons, but the honorable causes do not install their loons in positions of power or responsibility – and remove them when discovered.
Defaming President Obama is hardly the only monkey business incorporated by the GOP:
SD 56 GOP web video prompts call for ouster of district chair
http://minnesotaindependent.com/64086/joe-salmon-sd-56-gop-video (The “Who let the dogs out?” scandal.)
The republican party needs to show less “family values” intolerance and more respect for the rights of others and the basic social necessity of respecting human dignity.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
- GOP leaders denounce Obama-chimp email (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- OC Tea Party Activist Who Sent Racist Email Defiantly Refuses to Resign (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- Republican Tea Partiers just can’t seem to get enough of those Obama/black people/chimpanzee jokes (crooksandliars.com)
The GOP war on the middle class has reached a critical stage, where even republicans are beginning to see direct harm from the GOP agenda.
As more people realize that driving down working class wages is part of the GOP plan for job-creation, they will also realize that the GOP is attacking the financial resources of the vast majority of consumers – and attacking them from all sides. This will cripple 70% of the economy and kill millions of jobs. Republicans never have been very good at creating jobs.
As we can no longer borrow enough money to bail out conservative failures, this will lead to far more than defaulting on our debts and driving the world into another depression.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
“Moreover, fiscal consolidation programs that decrease the number and compensation of government workers increase the availability and reduce the cost of skilled labor to private firms. The combination of improved expectations about taxes and lower labor costs increases the expected after-tax rate of return on new business investment in non-residential fixed assets in the short term.” (page7)
- Republican Governor Rick Scott joins War on Teachers (dailykos.com)
“The American dream is under attack, that’s the bad news,” said Cain while speaking at the forum. “The good news is we are on the attack. We have got to lead this nation from an entitlement society to an empowerment society. We must defend those principles this nation was founded on.”
Except that his party is the one that’s attacking everything America stands for and was founded on.
From religious freedom to voting rights to representational government, they have bills pending to set it all aside.
The republican party is aggressively terminating the Great Experiment, with strong support from people who don’t even know what the experiment is.
If the Tea Party really wanted to take back our country, they should be fighting the corporations instead of shilling for them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
2011 − 2012 LEGISLATURE
2011 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 10
- To amend section 34 of article IV of the constitution; relating to: continuity of
- government (second consideration).
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL
This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given second consideration by
the 2011 legislature for submittal to the voters in April 2011, was first considered by
the 2009 legislature in 2009 Assembly Joint Resolution 59, which became 2009
Enrolled Joint Resolution 14.
Article IV, section 34, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that the
legislature, to ensure continuity of state and local government operations in periods
of emergency resulting from enemy attack, must provide for prompt and temporary
succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature and whether
filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may be unavailable to
carry on the powers and duties of the offices. In addition, the legislature must adopt
any other measures that may be necessary to obtain the objectives of that section of
This constitutional amendment amends that provision in article IV, section 34,
to strike the phrase “enemy action in the form of an attack” and substitute “a severe
or prolonged, natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life, health, or the
security of the state,” thereby providing for legislative action to ensure continuity in
periods of emergency, whether resulting from enemy attack or from other causes.
PROCEDURE FOR SECOND CONSIDERATION
When a proposed constitutional amendment is before the legislature on second
consideration, any change in the text approved by the preceding legislature causes
the proposed constitutional amendment to revert to first consideration status so that
second consideration approval would have to be given by the next legislature before
the proposal may be submitted to the people for ratification [see joint rule 57 (2)].
If the legislature approves a proposed constitutional amendment on second
consideration, it must also set the date for submitting the proposed constitutional
amendment to the people for ratification and must determine the question or
questions to appear on the ballot.
- Whereas, the 2009 legislature in regular session considered a proposed
- amendment to the constitution in 2009 Assembly Joint Resolution 59, which became
- 2009 Enrolled Joint Resolution 14, and agreed to it by a majority of the members
- elected to each of the 2 houses, which proposed amendment reads as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 34 of article IV of the constitution is amended to
[Article IV] Section 34. The legislature, in order to ensure continuity
of state and local governmental operations in periods of emergency
enemy action in the form of an attacka severe or prolonged,
natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life, health, or the
security of the state, shall (1) forthwith provide for prompt and temporary
succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature
and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which
may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such
offices, and (2) adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper
for attaining the objectives of this section.
- Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring,
- That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution is agreed to by the 2011
- legislature; and, be it further
- Resolved, That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution be
- submitted to a vote of the people at the election to be held on the first Tuesday in April
- 2011; and, be it further
- Resolved, That the question concerning ratification of the foregoing proposed
- amendment to the constitution be stated on the ballot as follows:
- QUESTION 1: “Continuity of government operations during an
- emergency. Shall section 34 of article IV of the constitution, which requires the
- legislature to ensure continuity of state and local government operations during an
- emergency, be amended to change the definition of emergency from ‘enemy attack’
- to ‘severe or prolonged, natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life,
- health, or the security of the state’?”
“periods of emergency resulting from enemy action in the form of an attack” is a pretty specific condition, one that strongly implies chaos to a degree that would physically impair the normal functioning of government. It was clearly meant for a moment when political agendas had to be set aside and emergency measures taken to address immediate problems. This section of the Wisconsin Constitution dates back to 1961, before 21st century communications like cell phones, satellite phones, and the Internet. It was a time when the possibility that key people could be unreachable for extended periods of time was a reasonable concern. A time when phones were relatively few and land wired, although there were more pay phones. A time before the resources of a staff could be squeezed into a portable device.
Today, the concern must be for the physical impairment of the key individual, and less for the breakdown of communications. In the current environment, it would be unrealistic to expect that the republicans would set aside ideology long enough to deal with an emergency.
“severe or prolonged, natural or human−caused, occurrence that threatens life, health, or the security of the state” is a very broad, ill-defined condition for authorizing the “temporary” alteration of an elected government.
“provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such offices”
This was written to authorize extreme measures to avert the complete breakdown of government at a time when control of the territory itself would be brought under question. The threat of foreign invasion is less likely than ever. But is invasion what this amendment is about?
- severe or prolonged
- natural or man-made
- threatens life, health, or the security of the state
A hurricane is severe, natural caused, threatens life. It fits the requirements. But is it grounds for replacing government officials who “may become unavailable”?
The recession is severe and prolonged, man-made, and threatens the security of the state. Does it justify replacing government officials, including elected officials, who may just be on vacation or out of state on business, or maybe just a legislator when the legislature is out of session?
The budget crisis is severe and prolonged, man-made, and threatens the security of the state. This amendment could be used to replace one or more Democrat senators and eliminate what little balance of power there is in the state government.
Unanswered questions/undefined terms:
- How severe is “severe?
- How long is “prolonged?
- How many lives must be threatened to say a situation “threatens life”? What kind of threat?
- What kind of threat to health? How widespread? Bird flu? Salmonella? Poisoned ground water?
- What constitutes a “threat to the security of the state”? Illegal immigrants? Corporate lobbyists? The Koch Brotherhood?
This amendment goes very far beyond the scope and purpose of the original section of the state Constitution.
Unbelievably, this resolution does not offer the slightest reason or justification for such a drastic alteration of a section of their constitution that is largely obsolete and irrelevant.
This suggested amendment does not simply beg to be abused, it seems designed for the sole purpose of laying the foundation for an usurpation of power.
It paves the way for a coup d’état. I guess that is one way to “take back the government”, but it is not the democratic way – not the American way.
I rate this amendment a corruption of the Republican form of government and anti-American.
Update: I have noticed that they tried to do even worse in the last session:
In the previous attempt, all they did was strike “resulting from enemy action in the form of an attack“, leaving the authorization for ANY “emergency”. There was a requirement that it be posted 3 months before the election, which was dropped this time, but no wording for the ballot was specified.
- How Can A New Constitutional Convention Be Called? (seercat.wordpress.com)