Fair Pay Act passes in House

• Fair Pay Act passes in House - jj
  • Does this mean Sarah gets another raise?...LOL - Just the big bad
    • You mean like all the people in congress who just gave themselves pay raises - New Englander
      • Why do pubs have such difficulty staying on task? - sm
      • I would quit trying to talk to these lefties. - The character assasinations from them never end.nm
        • Yeah, they remind me circling vultures....can't talk to any of them these days... - libs are very unbecoming lately
      • Oh boy. WAKE UP. Follow the link before you post. - jj
        • Doesn't make a difference - New Englander
          • Sarah was pointed out....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Don't foget d) - jj
            • Opps.....(sm) - Just the big bad
              • Whatever.....nm - New Englander
  • http://www.connpost.com/ci_11416199 - Oops. Forgot the link. jj

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Immediate Release

The Interfaith Alliance

September 22, 2005

Contact: Jon Niven or Don Parker 202.639.6370

House Passes Bill Allowing Government-Funded Religious Discrimination

Washington, September 22 – Today, The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment and a bill to allow government-funded religious discrimination

The School Readiness Act (H.R. 2123), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Head Start program, was passed 48-0 in committee. However, during floor debate Thursday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) added an amendment allowing Head Start providers to exercise religious discrimination in choosing teachers and volunteers. As a result, the final vote on the bill (231-184) was stripped of the unanimous, bipartisan support displayed in committee.

The Interfaith Alliance is very disappointed in the members of Congress who insist on reacting to one crisis by beginning another one, said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance. The Boustany amendment is a prime example of political opportunists taking advantage of a national tragedy to institute policies that are unconstitutional and have been previously rejected by the Congress.

The Interfaith Alliance was joined by more than 50 organizations in opposition to the bill's passage if it contained the Boustany amendment. The National Head Start Association, which represents more than 2.5 million children and families, program staff and volunteers that comprise the Head Start and Early Head Start community, came out against the entire bill if the Boustany Amendment was attached saying:

In spite of its positive provisions, if HR 2123 contains a religious discrimination amendment, we must reluctantly oppose the bill.

This amendment will subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars, turning back civil rights protections that currently apply to nearly 200,000 Head Start teachers and over 1.4 million parent volunteers.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the levees protecting religious liberty are being breached, and the wall between church and state is cracking, Gaddy said. If those in Congress who seek to repeal religious liberty safeguards are successful, thousands of children, teachers and parent volunteers who have dedicated themselves to this program could find themselves no longer welcome at religiously-affiliated Head Start programs because they are of a different faith than the sponsoring organization.

The Senate passed a similar bill, but without the Boustany amendment, so the House version will now go to a House-Senate conference committee. Members of The Interfaith Alliance will urge Senators to strip the bill of the Boustany amendment in conference.

Initiated in 1965 in the wake of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Head Start has been widely recognized as one of the most successful government programs ever created. It has provided early childhood education and development programs that have helped millions of low-income families overcome inequities for more than forty years.

.

AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.

“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,”  Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”

“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

but she should move the ethics investigation to Harry Reid next:

REID'S LAST KNOWN NATIONAL MEDIA APPEARANCE: October 18^th Trying To Explain His Ethical Issues. Sen. Reid: I bought a piece of land, sold it six years later. Everything was reported. It was all transparent. (CNN's Newsroom, 10/18/06)

[H]arry Reid Has Been Using Campaign Donations Instead Of His Personal Money To Pay Christmas Bonuses For The Support Staff At The Ritz-Carlton ... Federal Election Law Bars Candidates From Converting Political Donations For Personal Use. (John Solomon, Reid Used Campaign Money For Christmas Bonuses At Personal Condo, The Associated Press, 10/16/06)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Senate gave final approval on Thursday to a health insurance bill for 10 million children, clearing the measure for President Bush, who said he would veto it.

The 67-29 vote followed a series of speeches by Republican senators supporting the bill and urging Mr. Bush to reconsider his veto threat.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, one of 18 Republicans who voted for the bill, said the White House had shown “little if any willingness to come to the negotiating table.”

Republican opponents of the bill, like Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas, said it would be a big step toward socialized medicine, would shift people from private insurance to a public program and would allow coverage for illegal immigrants and children in high-income families.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said it was “intellectually dishonest” to make such “outlandish accusations.”

Mr. Bush has said the bill would move toward “government-run health care for every American.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said those fears were unfounded.

“What will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care,” Mr. Corker said.

The bill would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover nearly four million uninsured children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. It would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than the current spending and $30 billion more than the president proposed.

Mr. Bush has not shown a willingness to compromise. But he may come under pressure so from Republican lawmakers who do not like being portrayed as hostile to children’s interests.

Democrats have selected Graeme Frost, 12, of Baltimore, to deliver their Saturday radio address. He will appeal to the president to sign the bill.

On Monday, the Service Employees International Union will rally outside the White House, and children will deliver petitions urging approval of the bill.

The child health program was born in 1997 from collaboration between Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

On Thursday, Mr. Hatch said that “it pains me” that Mr. Bush has not worked with Congress to renew the program. Some people in the administration “have been slow to recognize the realities of the new Congress,” where Democrats have a majority, Mr. Hatch said.

The bill has support from AARP, the big lobby for older Americans; the American Medical Association; America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for insurers; and governors from both parties.

In the House, the bill was approved on Tuesday, 265 to 159, with support from 45 Republicans. The House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said he was confident that the veto would be upheld. A two-thirds majority in both chambers would be needed to override the veto.

The bill would increase tobacco taxes, with the levy on cigarettes increasing to $1 a pack from the current 39 cents. It would require states to cover dental services for children and would increase coverage of mental health services in many states.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said: “Our Democratic colleagues have taken Schip hostage, and what they want in exchange is Republican support for government-run health care., courtesy of Washington .”

balanced . . . we're looking out for YOU . . . we're looking out for the FOLKs . . . fair and balanced . . .

Bush should be grateful for this (even though he will probably ignore it, as usual), as the day may come when HE faces charges as a war criminal, and he would demand and be entitled to the same due process under the law.

Senate Armed Services Committee defies Bush; Passes its own terrorism tribunal bill

09/14/2006 @ 3:41 pm

Filed by RAW STORY

The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush today by passing its own terrorism tribunal bill to protect the rights of terror detainees.

Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court, reports Bloomberg News.

The four Republicans acted against the White House today only a few hours after the president paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill in order to personally lobby House members to support his plan.

President Bush visited Capitol Hill Thursday where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans on legislation to give the government more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects, reported the Associated Press earlier today.

Bush told reporters later at the White House that he would resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.

The bill passed by the Senate panel had been drafted by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey O. Graham, and Chairman John Warner. Senator Susan M. Collins was the fourth Republican to vote for the bill.

Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions' standards for humane treatment of prisoners, reports Reuters.

Earlier today, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Republican Senator John McCain (video link), supporting his opposition to the president's plan which would redefine the legal definitions in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism, Powell wrote McCain. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

REPUBLICANS

John Warner (Virginia) Chairman

John McCain (Arizona) James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma) Pat Roberts (Kansas) Jeff Sessions (Alabama) Susan M. Collins (Maine) John Ensign (Nevada) James M. Talent (Missouri) Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) John Cornyn (Texas) John Thune (South Dakota)

DEMOCRATS

Carl Levin (Michigan) Ranking Member

Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts) Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia) Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) Bill Nelson (Florida) E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Dayton (Minnesota) Evan Bayh (Indiana) Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)

Thank you for responding in a respectful manner.

For the record, I felt Kfir's remarks to me were offensive first, and that's why my remarks became nastier.  In fact, the remark about Kfir not being representative of most Israelis was in direct response and in the same tone to Kfir's post to me regarding being representative of liberals.

And I don't believe my take on the end times is a fact.  It's nothing more than my personal opinion, based on things I read that lead me to feel that way and raise the questions I raised.

I do agree that these issues are very emotionally charged and respect your decision to not discuss them further.  Again, thank you for being respectful.

I would be 100% fine with my taxes being raised 3% if it meant healthcare for all American children.  Heck, I would be overjoyed with that!  So if that bill ever comes up I guarantee you I will support it, but the fact is the current bill is a solution that could help families right now, and I support it.  I would support just about any bill that would help lower health insurance costs to American families, honestly.  I just truly think this one is great because it is aimed at covering minors.  I also think it is great that Republican and Democratic leaders tried to work together and compromise on it and decided to tax cigarettes instead of raising taxes in other areas.

So yes, I would rather have a hike in taxes and have more affordable healthcare for kids.  Is that the best solution for lower health care costs for adult Americans?  Maybe not, but for the minors with no choice in what kind of family they are born into I think it is a great choice.

Here's what Alaska has to say about it.

http://www.ktva.com/ci_11255829

You can also find this story on Fox, AOL news, and a number of publications.  From what I gather, Palin's spokesperson has said she won't accept the raise or will donate it.  That really doesn't sound right to me, espcially since not only did she have a hand in selecting the committee that decided to give out the raises, but the committee was actually formed in order to evaluate whether raises were needed. 

Why do I care about this?  My guess is that we will see her again, so I think it's important to keep up with what she's doing in the meantime.  I don't believe in that *out of sight, out of mind* thing.

what it does do is put money in the hands of people who have to spend it.  If they were to just give money to the middle class, most of us would simply save it or pay off bills.  That doesn't stimulate the economy.  The spending deficit is the main problem with the economy, and that's what they are addressing with this.  It's the same theory behind food stamps.  Statistically, the poorer the people that receive the money, the more likely it will be spent -- and that's the goal -- to get people to spend money.

Really, if you look at the tax cuts that we are supposed to get that come to what, I think someone said about $13 a week, you will see the same concept.  When Bush sent out those rebate checks, the idea, again, was to get people spending money.  Well, they didn't.  They paid bills and saved -- so we know that doesn't work.  However, if you are just getting an extra $13 a week, most people will just see that as an extra $13 for something else they will buy.  They will be less likely to save that $13 than they would a lump sum like the ones Bush sent out.

what it does do is put money in the hands of people who have to spend it.  If they were to just give money to the middle class, most of us would simply save it or pay off bills.  That doesn't stimulate the economy.  The spending deficit is the main problem with the economy, and that's what they are addressing with this.  It's the same theory behind food stamps.  Statistically, the poorer the people that receive the money, the more likely it will be spent -- and that's the goal -- to get people to spend money.

Really, if you look at the tax cuts that the middle class are supposed to get, they come to what, I think someone said about $13 a week, you will see the same concept.  When Bush sent out those rebate checks, the idea, again, was to get people spending money.  Well, they didn't.  They paid bills and saved -- so we know that doesn't work.  However, if you are just getting an extra $13 a week, most people will just see that as an extra $13 for something else they will buy.  They will be less likely to save that $13 than they would a lump sum like the ones Bush sent out.  That means the likelihood of the money being spent is greater.

what it does do is put money in the hands of people who have to spend it.  If they were to just give money to the middle class, most of us would simply save it or pay off bills.  That doesn't stimulate the economy.  The spending deficit is the main problem with the economy, and that's what they are addressing with this.  It's the same theory behind food stamps.  Statistically, the poorer the people that receive the money, the more likely it will be spent -- and that's the goal -- to get people to spend money.

Really, if you look at the tax cuts that the middle class are supposed to get, they come to what, I think someone said about $13 a week, you will see the same concept.  When Bush sent out those rebate checks, the idea, again, was to get people spending money.  Well, they didn't.  They paid bills and saved -- so we know that doesn't work.  However, if you are just getting an extra $13 a week, most people will just see that as an extra $13 for something else they will buy.  They will be less likely to save that $13 than they would a lump sum like the ones Bush sent out.  That means the likelihood of the money being spent is greater.

The subject of abortion is just going way too far left here.  If someone doesn't approve of abortions, they should not be forced to do them.  If a mother has the right to abort her baby, a doctor should have a right to refuse to perform such a thing.  That mother will just have to go to someone else.  But to take the rights away from either the mother or the doctor......that isn't right.  If you want the government to stay out of your uterus, then don't take free will away from someone who doesn't believe in it by making them perform such an act.  Think about it.  When you look at it from both sides, the extreme left and the extreme right are both wanting unfair things. 

I mean....there are the major kool-aid drinkers who refuse to see anything bad about obama no matter what the man does, but that really goes on both sides.  Some pubs are just as bad about that.  I think that Obama ran a great campaign with promises that people really wanted to believe.  However, now some of those Obama supporters are sweating it too.  It is now only the democratic kool-aid drinkers that continue to praise him. 

They don't need to run that ad.  Sean Hannity repeats his mantra of Rev. Wright and Ayers every evening.  He does not seem to have much respect for his viewers.  He just repeats those 2 things over and over like the viewers are dumb stumps.

Not fair by my standards.  Who is making the rules about fair and unfair?

My Fair Veep

WASILLA, Alaska

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the Arctic plain ...

I hope John McCain doesn’t throw his slippers at Sarah Palin’s head or get as acerbic as Henry Higgins did with Eliza Doolittle when she did not learn quickly enough. McCain’s Pygmalion has to be careful, because his Galatea might be armed with more than a sharp tongue.

For the first time in American history, we have a “My Fair Lady” moment, as teams of experts bustle around the most famous woman in politics, intensely coaching her for her big moment at the ball — her first unscripted interview here this week with ABC News’s Charlie Gibson.

Eliza, by George, got it and brought off the coup of passing herself off as a Hungarian princess rather than a Covent Garden flower seller. Sarah’s challenge is far tougher, and that’s why she’s pulling the political equivalent of an all-nighter. She doesn’t have to pass herself off as a different class or change her voice or be more highfalutin. The McCain campaign is reveling in its anti-intellectual tenor.

Sarah, who is now so renowned that she is known merely by one name and has a name ID of 90 percent, has to be a Kmart mom who appeals to Kmart moms and dads. She’s already shown that she can shoot the pig, put lipstick on it, bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan. Now all she has to do is also prove that she can be the leader of the free world on a moment’s notice, and field dress Putin as adeptly as she can a moose.

After devilishly mocking Obama — and successfully getting into his head — with ads about how he was just a frothy celebrity, like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, it turns out all the McCain camp wanted was an Obama of its own. Now that they have the electric Palin, they’ve stopped arguing that celebrity is bad. All they do is worship at her cult of celebrity. As Rick Davis, a top McCain adviser, said: “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

Wasilla will be crawling with four groups — ABC staffers, frantically getting ready for the big showdown; McCain staffers, frantically tutoring Palin for the big showdown; McCain vetters, who are belatedly doing their job checking to see if Palin is a qualified White House contender and doing their best to shut down Troopergate and assembling a “truth squad” posse of Palinistas to rebut any criticism and push back any prying reporters; and journalists — from Sydney to Washington — who are here to draw back the curtain on the shiny reformer image that the McCain camp has conjured for their political ingénue and see what’s behind it.

Gibson has his work cut out for him. His problem isn’t coming up with a list of questions, but finding time to drill deeply enough into all the unknown territory of her life. It’s a task that dwarfs the drilling job the oil companies are doing on Alaska’s North Slope.

In the end, none of it may matter, since Palin has rocketed in the polls, drawing women and men with her vapid — if vivacious and visceral — scripted cheerleading. But if you’re reading this, Charlie, we want to know everything, including:

What kind of budget-cutter makes a show of getting rid of the state plane, then turns around and bills taxpayers for the travel of her husband and kids between Juneau and Wasilla and sticks the state with a per-diem tab to stay in her own home?

Why was Sarah for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, and why was she for earmarks before she was against them? And doesn’t all this make her just as big a flip-flopper as John Kerry?

What kind of fiscal conservative raises taxes and increases budgets in both her jobs — as mayor and as governor?

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., will she call the Wasilla Assembly of God congregation and ask them to pray on a response, as she asked them to pray for a natural gas pipeline?

Does she really think Adam, Eve, Satan and the dinosaurs mingled on the earth 5,000 years ago?

Why put out a press release about her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and then spend the next few days attacking the press for covering that press release?

As Troopergate unfolds here — an inquiry into whether Palin inappropriately fired the commissioner of public safety for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law — it raises this question: Who else is on her enemies list and what might she do with the F.B.I.?

Does she want a federal ban on trans fat in restaurants and a ban on abortion and Harry Potter? And which books exactly would have landed on the literature bonfire if she had had her way with that Wasilla librarian?

Just how is it that Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers money (since they haven’t yet)?

Does she talk in tongues or just eat caribou tongues?

I disagree - it is well known that they are extremely right-slanted.  Fair and balanced.  What a joke.  Why do you think people in the know refer to them as Faux or Fixed news - just a coincidence? 

Chris Wallace's vicious sucker-punch attack on Bill Clinton (wherin Wallace got his rear end handed to him on a platter).