Tag Archives: Congress

medical news

Abortion bill: a non-starter

1 Comment

Let’s just put this one on ice: Abortion is not going to be one of those issues where the White House and Congress are going to compromise.

President Obama will veto House Resolution 36 if it ever gets to his desk.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get there.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-threatens-to-veto-new-gop-abortion-bill-20150120

The bill, cobbled together by Republicans who themselves are split on this issue, would prohibit abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.

Yep. That’s it.

Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether to end a pregnancy. Or that most Americans favor granting women the opportunity to decide such matters. Thus, abortion remains legal. The rate of abortion also happens to be declining.

None of that matters. Republicans who control Congress say two things: They oppose government “interference” but they demand that government interfere in this most personal and intensely emotional decision possible.

The National Journal reports: “Republicans themselves are divided on the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. At last week’s GOP retreat, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., called on House leadership not to bring up the bill this week, saying that the caucus needs ‘to be smart about how we’re moving forward.'”

It’s not smart to approve a bill they know will get a veto and which will not be overridden. It’s also not smart to tell a woman that she must take a pregnancy to full term. That is her call to make — exclusively.

 

 

 

International news

New sanctions against Iran? Now?

I make no apologies about my unwavering support for Israel in its struggle against the forces committed to its destruction.

Having visited the country and seen it up close over an extended period of time, I get that Israel must be on constant alert against its enemies.

However, it seems to me the speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s invited Netanyahu to speak to a joint congressional session on Feb. 11 to make the case that the United States should impose additional sanctions against Iran while it is in the middle of negotiations that seek to rid Iran of its ability to develop a nuclear weapon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/22/boehner_defies_obama_on_iran_sanctions_invites_netanyahu_125347.html

Isn’t it true that we have just one president of the United States?

Well, Barack Obama wants to complete the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He said he would veto any bill that piles on more sanctions against Iran — at this critical moment.

This is a difficult and dangerous gambit that Congress is playing.

Congressional leaders believe they’ve been left out of the negotiation process. So they’re going to interject themselves into this tumult by adding more sanctions against Iran.

Why now? Why not let diplomacy — which brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place — complete its task? If the negotiations fail, if Iran decides to proceed with its nuclear program — and threaten yet again to blow Israel to pieces — then all bets should be off.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday quoted an unidentified Israeli intelligence official as saying that adding sanctions “would be like throwing a grenade into the process.”

Speaker Boehner is having none of it. He wants to circumvent the White House by inviting Netanyahu — who’s got his own political troubles at home — to make his pitch for additional sanctions.

I totally understand Netanyahu’s perspective. His country has gone to war several times in the 67 years of its existence against nations that have vowed — and actually sought — to destroy Israel. Iran has threatened Israel directly many times since the Islamic Revolution overthrew the shah in 1979. The Israelis likely have plans drawn up already in case the need arises to launch a pre-emptive air strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

But we’re in the midst of a delegate negotiation that shouldn’t be rattled by additional sanctions that well could end these talks — and destroy any prospects for a potential binding settlement.

 

business news, national news, political news

'Transfer of wealth' talk likely to surface

Can we now discuss one of President Obama’s key points in his State of the Union speech?

It’s about that tax cut for the middle class.

He took considerable pain Tuesday night to extol the virtues of middle-class Americans and the work they do to make our country strong economically. He wants to give middle classers — folks like my wife and me — a break on their taxes. To pay for it he wants to ask more of wealthy Americans. They need to pay more in taxes to finance the tax relief he’s planning for the rest of us.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-have-one-word-for-president%e2%80%99s-proposals-and-veto-threats-%e2%80%98no%e2%80%99/ar-AA8pnAq

Those on the right and far right have a term for it. We’ll hear it. It’s called “transfer of wealth.”

Let’s try to set the record straight.

As I understand the meaning of the term “transfer of wealth,” what would have to occur is that the federal government would have to actually take money earned by rich folks and give it to not-so-rich folks. Legend has it that Robin Hood did that in medieval England when he “took from the rich and gave to the poor.”

That’s wealth transfer.

What I heard the president propose Tuesday night was nothing of the kind.

A tax cut for the middle class wouldn’t deprive rich Americans of their wealth. They’d still be rich. They’ll get to keep their yachts, fancy cars, summer/winter homes and all their bling.

The middle class would get to pocket a little more disposable income to spend on things they want or need.

All this being said, I do understand GOP criticism of the president for proposing something he knows won’t ever be enacted into legislation he can sign into law. On that score, Barack Obama has proved his political deftness, as his proposal was met in the congressional chamber with applause from Democrats and silence from Republicans. How do you suppose that looks to millions of middle-class Americans watching who actually favor a tax break?

I don’t intend to tolerate any demagoguery about wealth transfer in describing what the president has pitched.

How about debating the proposal on its merits: Do the folks who control Congress favor a tax break for middle-class Americans or not?

 

national news, political news

President has chance to 'pivot,' says GOP

The next-to-last State of the Union speech by Barack Obama is coming up.

It’s important. Heck, they’re all important. But this one seems more important than most. Why? For the first time in his presidency, Obama is going to make his speech before a joint congressional session controlled completely by politicians of the other party.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/17/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made an interesting observation: “Tuesday can be a new day,” McConnell said. “This can be the moment the president pivots to a positive posture, this can be a day when he promotes serious realistic reforms that focus on economic growth and don’t just spend more money we don’t have. We’re eager for him to do so.”

“Pivots to a positive posture,” he said. Positive posture? I think that means he wants the president to turn sharply rightward in his policy, heading right into the teeth of Republican orthodoxy.

Well, do not hold your breath, Mr. Majority Leader.

However, look for the president to “focus on economic growth.” We’ve seen plenty of it during the past five years or so.

The president has sought to scarf up the bulk of the credit for it. Republicans are fighting back, saying, “Hey, we deserve the credit.”

I don’t expect Barack Obama is going to cede much, if any, ground to Republicans on the state of the economy.

He’ll declare, though, that the state of our union is in good shape. Will he say “strong,” or “sound” or “resilient”? All of those descriptions?

Allow me this final observation. Barack Obama’s speech is going to give Republicans plenty of fodder with which to argue with him and his team.

The 44th president is heading toward a rocky and raucous home stretch. On Tuesday night, standing before a Congress controlled by Republicans, he’s going to make the turn.

 

national news, political news

'Spunk' drives Obama's poll spike? Perhaps

Polls are fun to follow. I do so regularly.

The most interesting and authoritative poll is actually a compilation of public opinion surveys. RealClearPolitics.com compiles the results and publishes a running average of all the polls. The key subject of these polls is President Obama’s approval ratings.

Lately, they’re going up … significantly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/14/obamas_new_spunk_lifted_ratings_white_house_says.html

As of this morning, the president has earned a rating of just less than 45 percent of Americans who approve of the way he’s doing his job.

Two quick points about these findings.

(1) They belie the notion that Obama’s poll numbers are “plummeting, skidding, spiraling downward” or whatever nasty verb the right-wing media keep using to describe his standing among Americans.

(2) White House aides believe the polls reflect his newfound “spunk” in dealing with the loyal opposition that now controls both legislative houses of the U.S. Congress. I agree with that, to a point. I think they reflect Americans’ continuing distrust of Congress, whose approval rating is still languishing at around 14 percent, according to RealClearPolitics’ poll average.

Juxtaposed with Congress’s dismal standing among Americans, the president is looking pretty good.

What does all this mean for the future? My strong hunch is that it means Congress needs to govern more and obstruct less. Believe it or not, view is that Americans actually want their federal government to work for them. It takes cooperation between the two governing branches — the White House and Capitol Hill.

Pay attention, folks.

 

national news, political news

Democrats tilting toward form of term limits

My views on mandated term limits for members of Congress are firmly established.

I don’t like the idea. Heck, I am wavering on whether term limits for presidents is such a great idea.

But the House of Representatives Democratic caucus is leaning more and more toward an idea that Republicans have adopted, which is term limits for committee chairs and ranking members.

I am warming up to that idea.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/more-house-dems-want-to-limit-time-at-the-top-114143.html?hp=t1_r

A growing number of House Democrats believe their Republican friends have outflanked them on the notion of injecting new leadership into the congressional ranks.

It’s critical to point out that Republicans run the House with a strong majority that was made even stronger after the 2014 midterm elections. The Democratic reform would involve the placement of top-ranking Democrats on these panels.

Politico reports: “Former Caucus Chairman John Larson, who was term-limited from that slot in 2013, agreed. He praised House Republicans’ six-year limit for people to serve atop committees, although Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has allowed some exceptions.

“’A number of people would say Republicans have struck a better formula for advancement,’ the Connecticut Democrat said. “And I don’t think it’s a bad thing for leadership at all. I mean, it’s verboten to say it, but it’s true and I think even our current leaders would recognize it, all of whom I support.’”

Each party makes its own rules that govern how they do business internally. Republicans have for several years instituted this term-limit rule for its own leadership. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, would in theory surrender his chairmanship after three more terms in the House, unless the speaker grants an exemption.

It’s a way to freshen each committee’s agenda, its leadership style and its focus — while preserving voters’ intentions back home of continuing to be represented by individuals they have re-elected to Congress.

Despite my dislike for term limits, these internal changes make sense to me.

Go for it, House Democrats.

business news, national news, political news

How about sharing the credit?

1 Comment

Grover Norquist just cracks me up.

The anti-tax Republican activist wants the GOP to seize the credit for the nation’s economic recovery from those pesky Democrats, led by President Barack Obama.

It’s Republican policies, not Democratic policies, that have ignited the nation’s recovery from near-disaster, Norquist told The Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/30/grover-norquist-economy_n_6396682.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Hey, here’s an idea, Mr. Tax Cutter: How about sharing it?

In a way, Norquist does make a salient point — more or less — about Republicans’ insistence that the economy still stinks. He says they should shut their trap about that and take credit for the good news we’re hearing.

According to The Huffington Post: “‘There were outside voices advising Republicans on what to do. They missed both calls,’ Norquist said in an interview with The Huffington Post. ‘I object as much as some of the guys on the right who are never satisfied in the moment. I’m never satisfied over time. But they go, ‘This was a disaster.’ No it wasn’t. We played our hand as well as you could and better than we had any reason to expect we would be able to.'”

If my own memory remains intact, I do believe the president gave in to Republican demands to keep the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration. He could have dug in his heels and demanded repeal of the “Bush tax cuts” for business and big income earners, but he didn’t.

As some have noted as well, the oil boom has driven the nation’s economic revival. Nothing else. It’s just oil, they say. Presidential policies have nothing to do with that.

If that’s the case, then do Republican congressional policies play a role here? I’m thinking, well, maybe not.

Whatever the case, the nation’s economic health is far better than it was when Barack Obama took the presidential oath in January 2009. He pushed through a bold stimulus package with the help of a Democratic-controlled Congress. The auto industry bounced back, thanks to that stimulus — and then repaid the federal Treasury in full.

The labor market has been restored to where it was prior to the crash of late 2008.

Who deserves credit? I’ve been glad to give the president some of the credit. I’ll give credit as well to that other co-equal branch of government, Congress.

The only problem with Norquist’s call for less belly-aching and more bragging is that the GOP will have to concede that its Democratic “friends” had a hand in it as well.

Didn’t they?

 

national news, political news

Congressman Felon ready to quit

Well now, it turns out that the latest case of congressional corruption is going to end the right way for Americans who actually expect their elected representatives to behave legally and ethically.

Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., who had pleaded guilty to tax fraud, mail fraud and assorted other felonies, is now set to quit his congressional seat.

Good deal. No, it’s a great deal!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/michael-grimm-resignation-113867.html?hp=l1_3

Grimm is a back-bench member of Congress who once served in the FBI. He campaigned for Congress on a platform of crime-fighting and getting rid of corruption. Then it turns out he’s one of them, one of the bad guys.

And when a reporter had the temerity to question Grimm about the charges hovering over him, the congressman threatened to break the reporter in half and toss him over the railing to the floor of the House of the chamber several dozen feet below. Oh yes: This was captured on video, as the reporter works for a TV station in Grimm’s congressional district.

As Politico reported: “Grimm, a 44-year-old former FBI agent, admitted a week ago to failing to report more than $900,000 in revenue from a Manhattan restaurant, Healthalicious, that he owned from 2007 to 2010.”

Could this man vote on tax policies affecting all Americans — including those who live far from his Staten Island district? Of course not. Good riddance, young man.

 

national news, political news

Obama getting year-end poll bounce

What’s going on here? President Obama is getting a bump in the polls as the year ends.

How can this be? We keep reading about “plummeting” poll numbers. Republicans kept harping on that as they ran hard against Democratic incumbents in the mid-term election. The strategy worked. The GOP gained control of the U.S. Senate, strengthened its hold on the House and snatched away a couple more governors seats for good measure.

Well, it seems that Americans might be willing to give the president a final chance as he enters the last two years in the White House.

With Republicans now running all of one branch of government — not just half of it — they’ll need to produce some actual results rather than seeking to block everything Democrats, including Barack Obama, want to do.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls puts the president’s approval rating at 42.6 percent, which still isn’t great. But the margin between approval and disapproval is now less than 10 percent, which is another interesting indicator of what the public thinks about Obama’s standing.

I’m hoping for the best the next two years.

Split government isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The president will have to compromise — some more! — on some issues. As for Republicans, they too will need to show more of a willingness to bend a little. The president, after all, does have that “veto pen” and the GOP will need more than the margin it enjoys in Congress to override any presidential veto.

The end of the old year might produce a new beginning in the year coming up.

Eternal optimist that I am, I remain hopeful the federal government can do some good for the country it is designed to help.

 

national news, political news

Bring on the State of the Union

House Speaker John Boehner has put an end to one of the more idiotic notions to come from the TEA party wing of the GOP in, oh, maybe ever.

The speaker officially invited President Obama on Friday to deliver the State of the Union speech on Jan. 20. It’s in keeping with congressional custom, which says the speaker invites the president into the House chamber to speak to a joint session of Congress — and the nation — about (yep!) the State of the Union.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/19/john-boehner-obama-state-of-the-union_n_6354448.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

A minor tempest popped up a few weeks ago when some TEA party advocates in Congress actually suggested — apparently in all seriousness — that Boehner ban the president from making his speech. Don’t extend the invitation, Mr. Speaker, they said, because we want to punish the president for issuing that executive order that saves 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.

That’ll teach him, isn’t that right, Mr. Speaker?

Well, Boehner didn’t listen. Good for him.

The president will deliver the State of the Union speech. He’ll lay out his agenda for the next two years. Democrats will clap; Republicans will (mostly) sit on their hands. That’s the way it goes at these events, no matter the party to which the president belongs.