|
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.
|