From
the Desk of: Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation 4/22/2010 On Monday, Sens. Kerry
(D-MA) and Graham (R-SC) will unveil their broad climate and energy tax to the
American people. I say tax, because that is precisely what it is - a huge
regressive tax that will impact every American and simply stated, devastate the
poor and those on fixed incomes... Allow me to explain. President Obama's
plan is to force power companies, refineries and factories and manufacturing plants
to reduce their carbon emissions. He plans to accomplish hat feat through heavy
taxation - meaning you and I will pay the tax at the pump, on our heating/cooling
and electricity bills. Those in the lowest and fixed income brackets spend
a greater percentage of their income on gas for cars and utilities and stand to
be hit the hardest by this latest tax scheme. But there is good news...
The Hill reports, "it remains unclear whether they can gain traction for [Cap
and Trade] legislation that includes controversial limits on greenhouse gases."
That's our window of opportunity, and one that we cannot miss in the coming week...
+ + More than 300,000 Petitions Opposing Climate Tax Scheme Only days ago,
I wrote you saying we were 15,000 petitions shy of our goal of 300,000 petitions
- petitions that we will hand-deliver to every Senate office, beginning next Monday
when the bill is announced. Since that message, we've added more than 21,000
petitions, with thousands more signing every hour! This is precisely the kind
of blistering grassroots feedback that needs to sweep into Washington, D.C. next
week opposing this latest tax plot. And given the fact that support for the plan
is on shaky footing already, your petitions could make the difference between
Cap and Trade moving forward or dying. Give my team the opportunity to hand-deliver
your petition to your two Senators by clicking here right now: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=27282&RID=21136934
Over the next 36 hours I'm calling on EVERY member of our incredible team to take
action - to sign our petition and alert their friends so that we can effectively
short-circuit this latest Obama effort to take your hard-earned money by clicking
below: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=27282&RID=21136934 Our deadline
for this critical delivery is Monday morning at 9 a.m. ET. So after adding your
name, forward this message to your friends and encourage them to oppose this massive
regressive tax by clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=27282&RID=21136934
With your support, I believe we could mobilize an additional 75,000 citizen signers
before our deadline! But I'm counting on you. Thank you for taking action.
Long
after Wall Street's crisis, Congress still arguing over fix By
KEVIN G. HALL AND DAVID LIGHTMAN McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON
-- Eighteen months after the near-collapse of the U.S. financial system, lawmakers
in the nation's capital still can't agree on how to fix what went wrong, despite
the abundant evidence of the economic devastation the crisis has caused. The
House of Representatives passed a sweeping overhaul of financial regulation in
December, but the legislation is now tied in knots in the Senate. There, Democrats
and Republicans have argued fruitlessly for months while Americans feel the aftershocks
of the meltdown in the form of high unemployment, record lengths of joblessness
and a historic plunge in lending. The House legislation, patterned largely
on the Obama administration's blueprint, tackles everything from first-ever regulation
of complex financial instruments to new bankruptcy-like powers to liquidate giant
financial institutions if their problems threaten the broader financial system.
The biggest obstacle to agreement remains the administration's proposal for a
stand-alone Consumer Finance Protection Agency to police credit products such
as mortgages, credit cards, student loans and even payday loans. Senate Banking
Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has floated a compromise with Republicans
to scrap the stand-alone requirement for the consumer protection agency in favor
of one that would be independent but housed in an existing bureaucracy, such as
the Treasury Department or perhaps the Federal Reserve. "Things continue to
move very well," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., one of two GOP senators negotiating
with Dodd on compromise language, said Wednesday. "We're closer on a couple issues,
but I'm not going to say any more." Another influential Republican was more
direct. "There will be a bill, but it will be very much cut back from what
the House passed," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the top Republican
on the Senate Finance Committee. "There will be consumer protection, but probably
not under a separate agency. I don't know where it could be housed." Those
comments, however, reflect a fight over an address and not the more substantive
question of what the agency's consumer-protection powers would be. That's the
issue on which lines are being drawn in the sand. Neither Democrats nor Republicans
appear ready to blink, and the impasse could doom the legislation. "The debate
about where it is, is not insignificant, but most significant is: What powers
will it have? Will we be able to do something about what happened to consumers
over the last few years?" Dodd asked on MSNBC Wednesday. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, lobbying hard against the new agency, was unmoved. "For us it's
less about the address of the agency and more about what it would be able to do.
Our concern here has been that this new agency or independent division would have
these very broad regulatory authorities that would, at the end of the day, choke
off the availability of credit for small business and consumers," said Ryan McKee,
senior director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for Capital Markets.
Business groups and banks fear that the consumer-protection agency could impose
costly regulations, raising borrowing costs for consumers and companies. Consumer
groups argue that federal bank regulators failed miserably to protect consumers
because they consider banks, not consumers, their constituents. Leaving consumer
protection up to the regulators who failed consumers preserves the status quo,
they argue. "We do not believe banking regulators, or any committee or group
of those regulators, should be given any authority to veto or delay important
consumer protections," Pamela Banks, senior counsel for the Consumers Union, the
publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, wrote to Dodd on Wednesday. "Moreover,
as we have seen, inaction and delay by banking regulators is what allowed the
subprime (mortgage) crisis to fester in the first place, threatening the near
collapse of our economy." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met Wednesday
with representatives of 30 advocacy groups and assured them that he won't back
off a core goal of strong consumer protection. "To us, he said, that means
a dedicated authority with the independence and capacity it needs to be accountable
and effective. He said that real accountability requires real independence to
make and carry out decisions; independent leadership appointed by the president
and confirmed by the Senate; independent budget and administration; independent
ability to set clear rules for the consumer financial services marketplace and
enforce them," said a Geithner aide, on the condition of anonymity to speak more
freely. He was preaching to the choir. "We urged them to continue to stress
the need for an independent consumer regulator that has the power to oversee all
players in the financial market place, whether they are banks or not, and it has
strong enforcement authority," Travis Plunkett, the legislative director for the
Consumer Federation of America, told McClatchy Newspapers. So with businesses,
banks and consumer advocates all digging in their heels, is it a stalemate? "I
definitely wouldn't call it a stalemate. But I would sound delusional if I
said something definitely was going to happen," said Plunkett, noting that substantive
talks are taking place in the Senate. "It's pretty clear right now that the banks
hold the upper hand. All the movement on policy is on what the banks have wanted.
I think a lot of people would find it surprising that large banks still have that
much power." Eighteen months after September 2008, when investment banks collapsed
and threatened to topple others, prompting government intervention, the urgency
for change is waning . "From an economic point of view, we have time to do
this right, and there is a lot of disagreement over what we do. Politically, it
is important to get it done this year . ... There is a danger that the longer
it goes, the less reform we get," said Douglas Elliott, a former investment banker
turned researcher at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy group in
Washington.
Mathew Staver on The Huckabee Show this Weekend
to Discuss Changes to Textbooks
www.LC.org
New York City, NY – This weekend Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty
Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, will appear on Mike Huckabee’s
show to discuss potentially dramatic changes to the framework of textbooks that
are being discussed by the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE). Huckabee and
Staver will be revealing suggested changes, some of which are still under discussion.
TSBOE will soon finalize the language that textbook publishers use to align their
textbooks to current standards. As Texas is a leader in textbooks, most other
states purchase the same educational materials. The show will begin at 8:00 p.m.
on Saturday and 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, Eastern Time. Some of the suggestions
that have come forward at various times include:
* Removing references
to Daniel Boone, General George Patton, Nathan Hale, Columbus Day, and Christmas.
* Including the cultural impact of hip hop music, ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow,
and the Hindu holiday of Diwali * Replacing the term "American" with "Global
Citizen"– stating that students need to be shaped "for
responsible citizenship in a global society" without any mention of citizenship
in American society. * Replacing expansionism and free enterprise with imperialism
and capitalism.
|
Supreme
Court hears arguments on Chicago handgun law By MICHAEL DOYLE McClatchy
Newspapers The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared poised to strike down
strict state and local gun bans, though in the most judicially conservative way
possible. During a highly anticipated oral argument, the same justices who
eliminated the District of Columbia's near-total handgun prohibition in 2008 suggested
strongly that they thought that Chicago's handgun ban was equally incompatible
with the Second Amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms is right there.
It's right there in the Bill of Rights," Justice Antonin Scalia said. In this
case, the court's eventual reasoning could matter as much as the final result.
The justices indicated Tuesday that they were likely to apply the due process
clause of the 14th Amendment to extend gun ownership rights. A more aggressive
alternative would be to overturn an 1873 precedent that had gutted part of the
14th Amendment. Doing that, though, would have far-reaching consequences for rights
and laws that have nothing to do with gun ownership. "It's a heavy burden
for you to suggest that we ought to overrule that (1873) decision," Chief Justice
John G. Roberts told one of two attorneys who were arguing on behalf of gun owners.
Scalia and Roberts were part of the court's 5-4 majority that struck down Washington's
gun ban in 2008. The landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision was the
first time the court ruled that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms extends
to individuals and not just formal militias. The Second Amendment says that
"a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2008
decision was limited to federal jurisdictions, because the first 10 amendments
that make up the Bill of Rights cover only the federal government. Finding
that gun ownership is an individual right makes it harder, but not impossible,
for the federal government to impose gun restrictions. Certain laws, such as those
that ban gun ownership by former felons, might still survive. "It's still
going to be subject to the political process," Roberts stressed. Underscoring
the issue's political visibility, lawmakers including Sens. George LeMieux, R-Fla.,
and Max Baucus, D-Mont., observed the proceedings. In the case heard Tuesday,
called McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court must decide whether the Second Amendment
extends to state and local governments. Chicago's ban is essentially as strict
as Washington's, permitting handgun ownership only by licensed private detectives
and the holders of old handgun licenses. "Firearms, unlike anything else protected
in the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill," James Feldman, Chicago's
special assistant corporation counsel, told the court, adding that "this is not
fundamental, unlike freedom of speech or freedom of religion." Feldman appeared
to have some allies on the court, including Justice Stephen Breyer. Mostly, though,
he faced skeptical questions from justices whose primary focus seemed to be what
route they would take to expanding the Second Amendment. This is called "incorporating"
the Second Amendment against the states. It has already happened for most of the
rest of the Bill of Rights, through the 14th Amendment's due process clause.
The 14th Amendment declares that states can't "deprive any person of life, liberty
or property, without due process of law." "The case for incorporating the
Second Amendment through the due process clause is remarkably straightforward,"
former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement argued on behalf of
the National Rifle Association. The 14th Amendment also declares that "no
state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States." An 1873 decision called the Slaughterhouse
Cases rendered this "privileges or immunities" clause toothless. Attorney
Alan Gura, who won the 2008 D.C. v. Heller case, urged the court to expand the
Second Amendment by overturning the 1873 decision. This would restore power to
the privileges or immunities clause, a prospect that clearly worried justices
from both sides of the ideological fence. "What unenumerated rights would
we be declaring?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. After Gura responded
that "it's impossible to give a full list of all the unenumerated rights that
might be protected by the privileges and immunities clause," Justice Samuel Alito
questioned whether these might extend as far as a "right to contract," which in
Supreme Court history is an excruciatingly controversial idea. Such a right would
make it easier for businesses to, say, challenge minimum-wage laws.
|