Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Government Reopens...For Now....

Having reached a deal yesterday to reopen the federal government, sequestered, laid off, furloughed workers today began to report back to their jobs in and around the country. What deal was reached,  however, may not be exactly what you may think it is, at it only funds the government until the middle of January, putting a burden on a committee to make sure that things role smoothly past that point:

The group of Democrats and Republicans from the Senate and House of Representatives is expected to start working in coming days and would have to report recommendations by December 13.
While there are no prescribed consequences if the committee fails to agree on recommendations, government funding runs out again on January 15, and the threat of another federal shutdown will put pressure on lawmakers for a deal.
On the other hand, such committees do not have a great track record. Washington has seen numerous deficit commissions and negotiating "gangs" and "supercommittees" fail, most notably after the budget deal in 2011.

One can only speculate what conditions will have to be met for compromise in order to keep this country rolling under the current governmental representatives. Full details on the compromise package, which include a $174,000 check to the widow of late millionaire Senator Frank R. Lautenberg. With these kinds of "deals," is it any wonder why we can't keep the country running?

Sic vis pacem parabellum

MT

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Senate Reaches Deal to Open Government

Senators Reid and McConnell have brought their parties, at least at the senate level, into agreement range in a bid to reopen the federal government. Speaker Boehner will call the House to vote on a resolution for the end of the shutdown as well.

The House is scheduled to consider the deal at 3 p.m.; the Senate, "after dinner," according to CNN.

The Senate deal would:
  • Keep the government open until Jan. 15;
  • Increase the debt ceiling through Feb. 7;
  • Appoint negotiators to hammer out a long-term budget deal;
  • Require income verification for those signing up for Obamacare subsidies.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced the agreement on the Senate floor, where it was expected to win swift approval after a main Republican critic of the deal, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, said he would not use procedural moves to delay a vote.

Senator Cruz of Texas has come out against the deal stating that it does not address Obamacare: ""The deal that has been cut provides no relief to millions of Americans who are hurting because of Obamacare. The deal that has been cut provides no relief to the young people coming out of school who cannot find a job because of Obamacare."

Regardless of who is to blame for having kept the government shut down for the past two weeks, the people of the United States are the real losers in all the political wrangling during this beltway showdown. The politicians that have been sent to Washington are not there representing the interests of the people of this country. The bullying, the haranguing, the posturing and posing, have all been for the benefits of the cameras covering the events of the shutdown. Washington keeps itself separated and segregated from the rest of the country by passing laws that they, themselves, do not follow or adhere to.

According to some legends of King Arthur, Camelot fell into sharp decline when there was one set of laws for the kingdom and a different set of laws for the King. Are we, as Camelot, falling into decline as a nation because of the same circumstance? Can a nation exist if there is one set of laws for the governors and another set for the governed? If history is any judge, looking at Rome and the Soviet system, such a system is doomed to failure...

Just a thought

Sic vis pacem parabellum

MT

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Updated: Government Denies Death Benefits to Service Members During Shutdown

See update below.

Adding to the list of things not being done by the federal government during the government shutdown, the Pentagon has released a statement that it does not have the "authority" to authorize death benefits for service members killed during this time period.

All of the leaders noted that despite the recall of most civilians, and the resumption of many activities across the Department of Defense, there are critical programs and benefits that remain halted. For example, the department does not currently have the authority to pay death gratuities for the survivors of service members killed in action – typically a cash payment of $100,000 paid within three days of the death of a service member. In addition, emergency funding that supports commanders on the ground and intelligence activities remains unavailable. Service leaders also reported that because of the shutdown, they are curtailing training for later deploying units – an activity that has already been reduced due to sequestration.

Blame who you will for the current governmental shutdown, but for service members to be denied death benefits, for the families of those service members to have stress added upon them unnecessarily, because two groups of people cannot come to terms, compromise with each other, and come to agreements over what amounts to little more than individuals being worried about their legacies over serving the public they were elected to represent, is reprehensible.

It is of little wonder that our founding fathers warned us against political party systems.

To our legislative bodies: fix this mess.

Now.

Sic vis pacem parabellum.

MT

Update: A private charity has stepped up to the plate to do what our government can't/won't do during the shutdown period.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Wednesday families of troops who die during the government shutdown will receive a death benefit payment, despite legal restrictions on the Pentagon, thanks to a deal reached with a private charity.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Kennedy Receives Standing Ovation on Senate Floor

Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts made his return today to the Senate. Under normal circumstances, not a big deal for a long term Senator to return to work, but for Ted Kennedy, today was important, as being there meant not breaking his word.
It's been a rough couple of months for Ted Kennedy. Recently diagnosed with a cancerous tumor on his brain and having undergone surgery and radiation and chemical treatment for it, Kennedy's health has not been the best over the course of the summer. Cancer patients can tell you, the treatment saps your energy and your strength, leaving you feeling weak and tired more easily than before the illness.

But Ted Kennedy has a tenacity about him, that, love him or hate him for his political views, has to be admired. It is this tenacity and integrity that prompted the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who is chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and is an influential Democrat on health care issues to, despite the advice and urgings of friends and family, return to the Senate floor today in order to be present for a vote on a Medicare bill that he had pledged his support for. Upon casting his vote the Senate chambers, he received a standing ovation from the assemblage.



Today, the Senate chamber erupted into loud cheers when Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) returned to cast his vote on long-stalled Medicare legislation. Senators gave Kennedy, who has been battling a brain tumor, a long standing ovation. As he registered his vote, Kennedy said in a loud voice, “Aye,” and made a thumbs-up gesture.

In a statement today, Kennedy explained his return:

I return to the Senate today to keep a promise to our senior citizens and that’s to protect Medicare.

Win, lose or draw, I wanted to be here. I wasn’t going to take the chance that my vote could make the difference.


Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Kennedy's record. His controversies, both personal and public, leave a lot to be desired, in my opinion, for some of the issues he tackles and makes a stand for. However, one does not necessarily have to be a student of the teachings of Sun Tzu to realize respectability in one's opponents. Ted Kennedy has definitely earned that respect from me today.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Grasping at straws and making things up...

It's an amazing thing how fear can send people into terrorized frenzies. Fear of an individual, especially a powerful, strong-willed, charismatic individual, can create a stirring of rumor, innuendo, and fabrications, all in an attempt to discredit an opponent.

Yes, boys and girls, we're talking about "mudslinging." And with Fred Thompson going SO HIGH in the polls, the leftinistras are starting to add water to anything they THINK might be the smallest patch of dirt that they can find.

Part of the trick is to make you BELIEVE that a candidate is something that they aren't. Notice how the Clintonistas are trying to portray Hillary as a motherly, friendly, charming person? A stretch, I know, to make ANYONE think that she has a personality, but that's the attempt. With Fred Thompson, the attempts go a little more devious.

First let's address the attempts to make Thompson an abortion supporter, something KEY to conservative voters. If you listen to the spin doctors, Thompson lobbied for abortion groups and supported abortion issues during his time in the Senate.

Not so.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters for this one.

July 6, 2007
The Pending Mudslinging (Update: Show Me The Money!)
It's easy to tell when a candidate has the potential to do well in a campaign -- the opposition starts throwing mud as early as possible. This appears to be doubly true with Fred Thompson, as the Los Angeles Times will shortly publish a new story about a purported client of Fred's when he worked as a lawyer and lobbyist. The American Spectator steals the Times' thunder:
The Washington Prowler column has learned that the Los Angeles Times intends to publish a story that would attempt to link former Sen. Fred Thompson to a Washington-based, pro-abortion organization. Thompson, through a spokesman, is said to go on the record in the story as having no recollection of ever doing work for the organization in question during a period in 1991 when the first Bush administration was in power.

During that time, Thompson, was "of counsel" at the Arent Fox law firm in Washington, D.C. (meaning he was not a partner, but was provided an office for his use, in part because Thompson's own practice was based in Nashville, TN), and was used by the firm's partners as a "draw" for clients and potential clients, according to a source at the firm familiar with the arrangements with Thompson and others with the "of counsel" designation. ...

In the story that the L.A. Times will report out within the next 24 to 48 hours, the paper will claim that Thompson was "hired" by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association, whose director, Judith DeSarno, was acquainted with a then-partner at Arent Fox, former Congressman Michael Barnes. In fact, DeSarno worked as a senior aide to Barnes during his time in Congress. According to Arent Fox insiders, Barnes, who now directs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and DeSarno are both well-known left-wing activists. Most recently, both were active against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Thompson was an adviser to Roberts, and served as his Senate "sherpa" during the confirmation process.
If the Times and its sources want to launch attacks on Thompson, they'll have to do better than this. Lawyers represent clients, and sometimes they do so for ideological support -- but most of them do it to earn a living. Even if Fred had done work for NFPRR, his political position on abortion has been rather clear. According to Project Vote Smart, Fred got solid zeroes from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, while the National Right to Life Committee have Fred a 77% rating.
That's a man who supports abortion whole-heartedly? Check out his record on this and other things here.

The next big thing that the leftinistras are going after Fred for is, now hold your hats, folks, this is going to make you laugh, he has a wife who is younger than he is.
Will Her Face Determine His Fortune

By SUSAN SAULNY
Published: July 8, 2007

AS the election of 2008 approaches with its cast of contenders who bring unprecedented diversity to the quest for the White House, the voting public has been called on to ponder several questions: Is America ready for a woman to be president? What about a black man? A Mormon?

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?

Mr. Thompson, who needs the support of early primary voters, is expected to formally announce his candidacy any day now. Meanwhile, much of the brouhaha around Mrs. Thompson, 40, is being stirred by photos of her in form-fitting gowns circulating on the Internet.

“You have a situation where a candidate happens to have an attractive wife, therefore it’s open season for smutty thoughts and lowbrow humor, and no concern for the fact that this is a wife and mother, a professional woman?” said Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official who is a consultant and the chief media adviser to the Thompson campaign. “One picture on the Internet and all of a sudden she’s reduced to being a bimbo?”
WHOAH! Say WHAT? Fred Thompson married a younger woman? So what? My grandfather on my father's side of the family was twenty something years older than my grandmother. It's a common thing. Hollywood CONSTANTLY puts older leading men in roles opposite younger leading women. How many women out there are NUTS over Harrison Ford. How many for Mel Gibson, DESPITE his recent brush with infamy? Check out this list for examples. In MY mind, it says a LOT about the man's stamina and outlook on life that he IS married to a woman nearly a quarter century his junior. OUTSTANDING. And if they are as happy as they come across as being, outstanding, indeed, to both of them.

Personally, and no offense to Laura Bush, but after having Hillary Clinton in the White House, and now THRUST in our faces again as a Presidential candidate HERSELF, would it be such a BAD thing to have an attractive younger First Lady? I don't THINK so. Especially not when she HAS the political savvy to have worked as a Senate aide AND as spokeswoman for the RNC.

Could it be that Hillary feels outclassed? GASP! I hope so.

Come on, leftinistras. Trying to make a bad thing out of something GOOD in a man's life?

Disgusting and appalling.

Shame on you.

And besides, didn't we already HAVE a President with a trophy wife when Jack Kennedy was in office (yes, I went there, I SO went there, I held back as long as I could but had to come back and add this question in. I WENT THERE). Makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Immigration Update, Cloture passes part II

This is a continuation of the Immigration vote thread started here: http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/06/immigration-update-cloture-passes.html

The Corner

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Cloture Tomorrow [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

A Senate source with well-established good instincts predicts: "Vote should be close... I'll be very surprised if this bill lives beyond tomorrow morning. Not certain, but four of the 64 are now on record as changing to “no” votes. One more and it’s over—assuming none of the “no” votes flip."

As I've said before, I can't help but think Harry Reid would love to be the guy who tried to get the president's bill through and simply couldn't because of Republicans. All he needs is for cloture to not happen tomorrow. Amnesty 8, give him that gift!




THIS IS BAD LEGISLATION THAT WE DO NOT NEED. I don't know how much more clearly it can be said than that.

Enough is enough. This has got to end, before it results in armed revolt and bloodshed. Is that what our Senate wants? Is that what our President wants? Because God KNOWS that is what is being said will happen by certain sections who are FED UP with this.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.