On Wednesday, December 16, 2009, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2847 - Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010. The bill primarily deals with additional economic stimulus provisions. However, the bill also contains two provisions of great interest to Social Security and SSI practitioners.
Under the bill passed by the House, these two provisions, (a) direct payment of fees in SSI cases, and (b) the program by which certain non-attorneys become eligible for direct payment of fees, would become permanent. Without legislation, these two provisions are slated to expire on February 28, 2010.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where it will be considered early next year. It is uncertain whether the Senate will pass the bill in its current form because of the economic stimulus provisions. However, we are encouraged that legislation to make these two Social Security/SSI provisions permanent has been passed by one House of Congress. We remain optimistic that Congress will act on these provisions before they are set to expire. NOSSCR
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
North American trading partner of U.S. "bumps off" labor union.
"Mexican Government Fires 44,000 (SME) Union Workers. Mexican Electrical Workers Union
"by: Hillbilly
"Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 19:10:25 PM EST
"Merry Christmas from Mexico to Corporate America?
"The Mexican government is sending a message to American Corporations and the message is this: Send us your jobs and we'll provide cheap labor, no unions here and we'll help to keep your labor cost down in America by sending illegal aliens to America as long as your government continues to turn a blind eye. We'll even smuggle drugs into America, if your government will continue look the other way.
How's that for a plan to drive down wages in Mexico and the United states of America and get high all at the same time?
Hillbilly :: Mexican Government Fires 44,000 (SME) Union Workers. Mexican Electrical Workers Union
United Steelworkers
PITTSBURGH – The United Steelworkers (USW) today accused the Mexican government of violating its own Constitution and labor laws, as well as Convention 87 of the International Labor Organization by unilaterally liquidating Central Light & Power Company (LyF); firing all 44,000 employees of LyF; and effectively dissolving the SME union by this mass firing, by the interference in the SME internal elections and by the freezing of SME assets.
In a letter to Mexican ambassador Arturo Sarukhan, USW International President Leo W. Gerard called for the government to reconsider its action.
“It is clear to us that all of this was done with the intention to destroy the SME, one of the few independent and democratic unions in Mexico,” Gerard wrote, “and that these actions constituted a dramatic violation of Mexico's obligations under by ILO Convention 87 and under the NAALC.”
Gerard also urged the Mexican government to return the status quo by returning all 44,000 workers to their prior jobs immediately; unfreezing the assets of the SME; and negotiating with the SME, and its designated leaders, as the legitimate representative of these workers. Only such remedial actions will bring Mexico in compliance with its own laws as well as international norms governing the labor relations of nations.
“Further,” Gerard wrote, “until these remedial steps are taken, we call upon the Mexican government to extent social security protections, for a period of at least one year, to all active employees of LyF.”
A fact-finding team, which included a USW senior associate general counsel, went to Mexico City late last month. While in Mexico City, the delegation met with leaders, members and attorneys for the SME union; Mexican Congressional Representatives; the Mexican Labor Ministry and the U.S. and Canadian Embassies."
The Union PACs better start supporting Democratic candidates before the Republicans have the North American labor unions wiped out. Kenneth Stepp, former Democratic Nominee for U.S. House KY-5.
"by: Hillbilly
"Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 19:10:25 PM EST
"Merry Christmas from Mexico to Corporate America?
"The Mexican government is sending a message to American Corporations and the message is this: Send us your jobs and we'll provide cheap labor, no unions here and we'll help to keep your labor cost down in America by sending illegal aliens to America as long as your government continues to turn a blind eye. We'll even smuggle drugs into America, if your government will continue look the other way.
How's that for a plan to drive down wages in Mexico and the United states of America and get high all at the same time?
Hillbilly :: Mexican Government Fires 44,000 (SME) Union Workers. Mexican Electrical Workers Union
United Steelworkers
PITTSBURGH – The United Steelworkers (USW) today accused the Mexican government of violating its own Constitution and labor laws, as well as Convention 87 of the International Labor Organization by unilaterally liquidating Central Light & Power Company (LyF); firing all 44,000 employees of LyF; and effectively dissolving the SME union by this mass firing, by the interference in the SME internal elections and by the freezing of SME assets.
In a letter to Mexican ambassador Arturo Sarukhan, USW International President Leo W. Gerard called for the government to reconsider its action.
“It is clear to us that all of this was done with the intention to destroy the SME, one of the few independent and democratic unions in Mexico,” Gerard wrote, “and that these actions constituted a dramatic violation of Mexico's obligations under by ILO Convention 87 and under the NAALC.”
Gerard also urged the Mexican government to return the status quo by returning all 44,000 workers to their prior jobs immediately; unfreezing the assets of the SME; and negotiating with the SME, and its designated leaders, as the legitimate representative of these workers. Only such remedial actions will bring Mexico in compliance with its own laws as well as international norms governing the labor relations of nations.
“Further,” Gerard wrote, “until these remedial steps are taken, we call upon the Mexican government to extent social security protections, for a period of at least one year, to all active employees of LyF.”
A fact-finding team, which included a USW senior associate general counsel, went to Mexico City late last month. While in Mexico City, the delegation met with leaders, members and attorneys for the SME union; Mexican Congressional Representatives; the Mexican Labor Ministry and the U.S. and Canadian Embassies."
The Union PACs better start supporting Democratic candidates before the Republicans have the North American labor unions wiped out. Kenneth Stepp, former Democratic Nominee for U.S. House KY-5.
Stop the madness, rein in federal spending in Iraq and Afganistan!
Fellow Progressives,
Within the next several days Congress will be voting on whether or not to RAISE our legal national debt limit from the current 12.1 trillion dollars by ANOTHER 1.8 trillion!
They’re doing this because, by law, the government can’t borrow any more money to pay for inflated spending unless they first raise the limit.
And they want to raise it by 1.8 trillion so it will be “enough” to cover what they want to borrow and spend until after the 2010 elections. So they won't have to vote on it "again" - until after they ask you to vote for them next November.
They want to do it during the holidays when they think few people will be paying attention and hope that most people will forget about it by next year.
This comes at the end of a year of record, runaway federal spending on everything from the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, corporate bailouts, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, and the Hal Rogers "earmarks”. Even the White House predicts our current Hal Rogers policies will leave us with $20 trillion in debt by the end of the next decade.
This madness has to stop. But we have to let Congress know we’re paying attention.
Contact your members of Congress and tell them to OPPOSE increasing our national debt limit.
(You can even send a personalized blast message to ALL Senators or House members, state delegations or all Republican or Democrats members as a group)
Don’t let them be able to claim that they never heard from you.
Tell them to “STOP the Spending”!
Kenneth Stepp, former Democratic Nominee for U.S. House KY-5.
Within the next several days Congress will be voting on whether or not to RAISE our legal national debt limit from the current 12.1 trillion dollars by ANOTHER 1.8 trillion!
They’re doing this because, by law, the government can’t borrow any more money to pay for inflated spending unless they first raise the limit.
And they want to raise it by 1.8 trillion so it will be “enough” to cover what they want to borrow and spend until after the 2010 elections. So they won't have to vote on it "again" - until after they ask you to vote for them next November.
They want to do it during the holidays when they think few people will be paying attention and hope that most people will forget about it by next year.
This comes at the end of a year of record, runaway federal spending on everything from the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, corporate bailouts, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, and the Hal Rogers "earmarks”. Even the White House predicts our current Hal Rogers policies will leave us with $20 trillion in debt by the end of the next decade.
This madness has to stop. But we have to let Congress know we’re paying attention.
Contact your members of Congress and tell them to OPPOSE increasing our national debt limit.
(You can even send a personalized blast message to ALL Senators or House members, state delegations or all Republican or Democrats members as a group)
Don’t let them be able to claim that they never heard from you.
Tell them to “STOP the Spending”!
Kenneth Stepp, former Democratic Nominee for U.S. House KY-5.
The Big Bucks Behind Health Care Sabotage
2009 - 10:33 am | 59 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
"The Big Bucks Behind Health Care Sabotage
"by John Wasik
"I know what the future of America holds if health-reform isn’t passed.
"More people will be uninsured. Premiums will rise. More employers will either drop coverage or raise out-of-pocket costs. Self-employed folks like me will either lose coverage or pay exorbitant premiums because of chronic conditions or expensive diseases like cancer (our situation now). More people will be bankrupted. More will die because they can’t afford life-saving care.
"This is not the forecast of a health-care economist, a politician or even Ralph Nader. It is a guaranteed fact because of the current health-insurance business model, the aging of America and the way politics is financed.
"Money, politics and health-care lobbies are in a dysfunctional marriage. It’s an unholy union that isn’t good for most people.
"Claims are losses, in insurance lingo. As people get older and sicker they have more health issues. A vast swath of the population is overweight, underexercised and eating poorly. There’s a heap of hurt coming to those who have to pay future bills, which is everyone.
"As a progressive — someone interested in a shared prosperity — it mystifies me why the concept of a fair and affordable national health program is imperiled. We all need it. To me and many others it should be a basic human right and part of our constitution.
"Yet as I explore the ecology between political financing, lobbyists and political agendas, the mystery is solved. Let’s follow the money.
"When Senator Byron Dorgan’s (D-North Dakota) amendment finally surfaced last week to import drugs from Canada, the Senate debate melted down. Who could possibly be against allowing Americans to afford life-saving medication?
"Dorgan’s fellow Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey had a big problem with Dorgan. It didn’t surprise anyone that they would object: New Jersey is home to more than 50 pharmaceutical companies and tens of thousands of jobs in that industry.
* * *
"Here’s another case where big-money politics is completely at odds with the needs of the American people.
"I know Canadian (or anywhere outside the US for that matter with national health programs) prices are cheaper because I’ve priced my wife’s chemo-anti-nausea medicines and can save more than half on what they charge at my local pharmacy. It’s the same medicine at lower, much more affordable prices. What a concept!
"Let’s look at a senator from a state with relatively little Big Pharma presence: Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. There are five major pharmaceutical facilities in the Bluegrass State, representing a fraction of the workers that New Jersey employs.
Horse breeding is likely a much bigger industry in the Senate Minority Leader’s Commonwealth. Yet drug company PACs were the single-largest contributor to McConnell in the current cycle — some $262,785 out of a total $416,285.Ironically, McConnell has a good reason to refuse drug company money. In 2003, the Kentucky Attorney General sued the nation’s five largest drugmakers for allegedly boosting prices on drugs for that state’s Medicare and Medicaid programs, overcharging them an estimated $100 million.
But McConnell’s loyalty to the idea of keeping drug prices high was worth less than a half million dollars. What a bargain for Big Pharma!What’s more important to politicians than getting industry money for a campaign? Not getting it. A half-million dollars is still a lot of money in Kentucky. And it still takes tens of millions to run a successful Senate campaign, even if you’re an incumbent.
"Notice I haven’t said a word about the even-bigger behind-the-scenes player in the health-care debate: the insurance industry. They know whatever happens, they will win big. The current House and Senate plans leave most of the private industry in place.
"Insurers — exempt from federal anti-trust laws — will likely get even bigger with 30 to 40 million more policies to write if health-reform passes. A handful of companies dominate most states.
"While Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), are seeking to repeal the antitrust exemption, it’s largely a side issue at this point that hasn’t been seriously discussed.
"The House’s recently passed financial reform bill does nothing to aggressively regulate insurance companies, which are monitored by much weaker state agencies.
"As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said in a recent blog:
“From the start, opponents of the public option have wanted to portray it as big government preying upon the market and private insurers as the embodiment of the market. But it’s just the reverse. Private insurers are exempt from competition. As a result, they are becoming ever more powerful. And it’s not just their economic power that’s worrying. It’s their political power, as we’ve learned over the last 10 months.”
* * *
"Once again the corporate state has subverted democracy. Public-interest politics continues to be hijacked by billions in campaign dollars that flow like effluent. Everybody outside of the power circles of K Street and boardrooms suffer as a result. Can we have meaningful reform in anything without disconnecting the big bucks lobbies from campaign funding?
"You can crow all you want about letting the free market create competition and keeping government out of health care. Yet when it comes to votes in the most exclusive club on earth — the U.S. Senate — big bucks lobbies have cornered the market." John Wasik
"The Big Bucks Behind Health Care Sabotage
"by John Wasik
"I know what the future of America holds if health-reform isn’t passed.
"More people will be uninsured. Premiums will rise. More employers will either drop coverage or raise out-of-pocket costs. Self-employed folks like me will either lose coverage or pay exorbitant premiums because of chronic conditions or expensive diseases like cancer (our situation now). More people will be bankrupted. More will die because they can’t afford life-saving care.
"This is not the forecast of a health-care economist, a politician or even Ralph Nader. It is a guaranteed fact because of the current health-insurance business model, the aging of America and the way politics is financed.
"Money, politics and health-care lobbies are in a dysfunctional marriage. It’s an unholy union that isn’t good for most people.
"Claims are losses, in insurance lingo. As people get older and sicker they have more health issues. A vast swath of the population is overweight, underexercised and eating poorly. There’s a heap of hurt coming to those who have to pay future bills, which is everyone.
"As a progressive — someone interested in a shared prosperity — it mystifies me why the concept of a fair and affordable national health program is imperiled. We all need it. To me and many others it should be a basic human right and part of our constitution.
"Yet as I explore the ecology between political financing, lobbyists and political agendas, the mystery is solved. Let’s follow the money.
"When Senator Byron Dorgan’s (D-North Dakota) amendment finally surfaced last week to import drugs from Canada, the Senate debate melted down. Who could possibly be against allowing Americans to afford life-saving medication?
"Dorgan’s fellow Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey had a big problem with Dorgan. It didn’t surprise anyone that they would object: New Jersey is home to more than 50 pharmaceutical companies and tens of thousands of jobs in that industry.
* * *
"Here’s another case where big-money politics is completely at odds with the needs of the American people.
"I know Canadian (or anywhere outside the US for that matter with national health programs) prices are cheaper because I’ve priced my wife’s chemo-anti-nausea medicines and can save more than half on what they charge at my local pharmacy. It’s the same medicine at lower, much more affordable prices. What a concept!
"Let’s look at a senator from a state with relatively little Big Pharma presence: Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. There are five major pharmaceutical facilities in the Bluegrass State, representing a fraction of the workers that New Jersey employs.
Horse breeding is likely a much bigger industry in the Senate Minority Leader’s Commonwealth. Yet drug company PACs were the single-largest contributor to McConnell in the current cycle — some $262,785 out of a total $416,285.Ironically, McConnell has a good reason to refuse drug company money. In 2003, the Kentucky Attorney General sued the nation’s five largest drugmakers for allegedly boosting prices on drugs for that state’s Medicare and Medicaid programs, overcharging them an estimated $100 million.
But McConnell’s loyalty to the idea of keeping drug prices high was worth less than a half million dollars. What a bargain for Big Pharma!What’s more important to politicians than getting industry money for a campaign? Not getting it. A half-million dollars is still a lot of money in Kentucky. And it still takes tens of millions to run a successful Senate campaign, even if you’re an incumbent.
"Notice I haven’t said a word about the even-bigger behind-the-scenes player in the health-care debate: the insurance industry. They know whatever happens, they will win big. The current House and Senate plans leave most of the private industry in place.
"Insurers — exempt from federal anti-trust laws — will likely get even bigger with 30 to 40 million more policies to write if health-reform passes. A handful of companies dominate most states.
"While Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), are seeking to repeal the antitrust exemption, it’s largely a side issue at this point that hasn’t been seriously discussed.
"The House’s recently passed financial reform bill does nothing to aggressively regulate insurance companies, which are monitored by much weaker state agencies.
"As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said in a recent blog:
“From the start, opponents of the public option have wanted to portray it as big government preying upon the market and private insurers as the embodiment of the market. But it’s just the reverse. Private insurers are exempt from competition. As a result, they are becoming ever more powerful. And it’s not just their economic power that’s worrying. It’s their political power, as we’ve learned over the last 10 months.”
* * *
"Once again the corporate state has subverted democracy. Public-interest politics continues to be hijacked by billions in campaign dollars that flow like effluent. Everybody outside of the power circles of K Street and boardrooms suffer as a result. Can we have meaningful reform in anything without disconnecting the big bucks lobbies from campaign funding?
"You can crow all you want about letting the free market create competition and keeping government out of health care. Yet when it comes to votes in the most exclusive club on earth — the U.S. Senate — big bucks lobbies have cornered the market." John Wasik
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Job Approval Ratings of Pres. Reagan and Pres. Obama compared.
A comparison of Ronald Reagan job approval rating and Barak Obama job approval rating approaching first midterm elections of Presidential Administration.
It's Obama 53% and Mitch McConnell 17% in national approval ratings!Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll
Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Dec 07, 2009 - Dec 10, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 53 (52) 42 (41) 5 (7) 0
PELOSI: 40 (41) 50 (50) 10 (9) -1
REID: 29 (30) 60 (59) 11 (11) -2
McCONNELL: 17 (16) 65 (67) 18 (17) 3
BOEHNER: 15 (14) 65 (65) 20 (21) 1
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 39 (40) 55 (55) 6 (5) -1
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 16 (14) 68 (69) 16 (17) 3
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 41 (42) 54 (53) 5 (5) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 26 (25) 64 (65) 10 (10) 2
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Dec 07, 2009 - Dec 10, 2009 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 53 (52) 42 (41) 5 (7) 0
PELOSI: 40 (41) 50 (50) 10 (9) -1
REID: 29 (30) 60 (59) 11 (11) -2
McCONNELL: 17 (16) 65 (67) 18 (17) 3
BOEHNER: 15 (14) 65 (65) 20 (21) 1
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 39 (40) 55 (55) 6 (5) -1
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 16 (14) 68 (69) 16 (17) 3
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 41 (42) 54 (53) 5 (5) -2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 26 (25) 64 (65) 10 (10) 2
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Should Democrats Play- to-Lose?
Playing to win
by Jed Lewison
Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 10:36:03 AM PST
Two weeks ago, we started tracking voter intensity in our weekly poll, asking people how likely they were to vote in the 2010 congressional elections. The results were striking: Democrats said they were far less likely to vote next November than Republicans.
Last week's results were basically unchanged: 56% of Democrats said they were likely to vote, compared to 82% of Republicans. Three times as many Democrats (37%) as Republicans (13%) said they were unlikely to vote.
Surprisingly, there's been a persistent line of argument in response to these numbers, dismissing them as unimportant -- or even as good news. That argument goes like this: Yes, Democrats are less motivated than Republicans, but there are so many more Democrats than Republicans that it doesn't matter.
This pushback is wrong, as I'll show below, but there are some nuggets of truth contained within it. It is absolutely true that there are more Democrats than Republicans. It is also absolutely true that this fact means Democrats can still win large victories even with lower voter intensity than Republicans. But it is equally true that when the intensity gap grows large enough, then Democrats are poised for trouble, and that's where we are now.
Let's look at the math, using our poll's weighting for partisan split, which is that 31% of adults are Democrats and 22% are Republicans. Looking just at people who are Democrat or Republican, that gives Democrats nearly a 3:2 advantage, just shy of 60%. If you do the math, you'll see that 49% of the people in this group who say they will vote are Democrats and 51% are Republicans. (Last week, Democrats had a slight advantage.)
The point that people make is that concern about the intensity numbers is misplaced, because the actual partisan turnout is currently likely to be roughly even.
This pushback is right on one point: our polling numbers suggest equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans will turn out to vote in 2010.
The problem here is the assessment that such an outcome is acceptable. Democrats currently control 60 seats in the U.S. Senate and nearly 60% of the seats in the House. Returning to a 50/50 scenario -- or even close to a 50/50 scenario -- would represent a historic shift in power, even more significant than the one that took place in 1994.
Yes, we'd be tied -- or close to it -- but right now, not only do we have a supermajority, we're up against the craziest, looniest Republican Party in decades, if not ever. An electoral tie with these guys would be a fail of epic proportions. Democrats should be slaughtering the Republican Party. Instead, Democrats are on track to tie the Republican Party.
If you think it's okay to tie this Republican Party, then I suggest you ought to consider raising your standards.
We can't play for a tie, especially not against these clowns. We've got to play to win. And if there's any Democratic political operatives in DC that don't get that, they should get out of the game now, because if they don't, they're going to get rolled over like it's 1994.
Permalink :: Discuss (227 comments)
by Jed Lewison
Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 10:36:03 AM PST
Two weeks ago, we started tracking voter intensity in our weekly poll, asking people how likely they were to vote in the 2010 congressional elections. The results were striking: Democrats said they were far less likely to vote next November than Republicans.
Last week's results were basically unchanged: 56% of Democrats said they were likely to vote, compared to 82% of Republicans. Three times as many Democrats (37%) as Republicans (13%) said they were unlikely to vote.
Surprisingly, there's been a persistent line of argument in response to these numbers, dismissing them as unimportant -- or even as good news. That argument goes like this: Yes, Democrats are less motivated than Republicans, but there are so many more Democrats than Republicans that it doesn't matter.
This pushback is wrong, as I'll show below, but there are some nuggets of truth contained within it. It is absolutely true that there are more Democrats than Republicans. It is also absolutely true that this fact means Democrats can still win large victories even with lower voter intensity than Republicans. But it is equally true that when the intensity gap grows large enough, then Democrats are poised for trouble, and that's where we are now.
Let's look at the math, using our poll's weighting for partisan split, which is that 31% of adults are Democrats and 22% are Republicans. Looking just at people who are Democrat or Republican, that gives Democrats nearly a 3:2 advantage, just shy of 60%. If you do the math, you'll see that 49% of the people in this group who say they will vote are Democrats and 51% are Republicans. (Last week, Democrats had a slight advantage.)
The point that people make is that concern about the intensity numbers is misplaced, because the actual partisan turnout is currently likely to be roughly even.
This pushback is right on one point: our polling numbers suggest equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans will turn out to vote in 2010.
The problem here is the assessment that such an outcome is acceptable. Democrats currently control 60 seats in the U.S. Senate and nearly 60% of the seats in the House. Returning to a 50/50 scenario -- or even close to a 50/50 scenario -- would represent a historic shift in power, even more significant than the one that took place in 1994.
Yes, we'd be tied -- or close to it -- but right now, not only do we have a supermajority, we're up against the craziest, looniest Republican Party in decades, if not ever. An electoral tie with these guys would be a fail of epic proportions. Democrats should be slaughtering the Republican Party. Instead, Democrats are on track to tie the Republican Party.
If you think it's okay to tie this Republican Party, then I suggest you ought to consider raising your standards.
We can't play for a tie, especially not against these clowns. We've got to play to win. And if there's any Democratic political operatives in DC that don't get that, they should get out of the game now, because if they don't, they're going to get rolled over like it's 1994.
Permalink :: Discuss (227 comments)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
We wish you a Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving.
Kenneth --
Tomorrow, Thanksgiving Day, Americans across the country will sit down together, count our blessings, and give thanks for our families and our loved ones.
American families reflect the diversity of this great nation. No two are exactly alike, but there is a common thread they each share.
Our families are bound together through times of joy and times of grief. They shape us, support us, instill the values that guide us as individuals, and make possible all that we achieve.
So tomorrow, I'll be giving thanks for my family -- for all the wisdom, support, and love they have brought into my life.
But tomorrow is also a day to remember those who cannot sit down to break bread with those they love.
The soldier overseas holding down a lonely post and missing his kids. The sailor who left her home to serve a higher calling. The folks who must spend tomorrow apart from their families to work a second job, so they can keep food on the table or send a child to school.
We are grateful beyond words for the service and hard work of so many Americans who make our country great through their sacrifice. And this year, we know that far too many face a daily struggle that puts the comfort and security we all deserve painfully out of reach.
So when we gather tomorrow, let us also use the occasion to renew our commitment to building a more peaceful and prosperous future that every American family can enjoy.
It seems like a lifetime ago that a crowd met on a frigid February morning in Springfield, Illinois to set out on an improbable course to change our nation.
In the years since, Michelle and I have been blessed with the support and friendship of the millions of Americans who have come together to form this ongoing movement for change.
You have been there through victories and setbacks. You have given of yourselves beyond measure. You have enabled all that we have accomplished -- and you have had the courage to dream yet bigger dreams for what we can still achieve.
So in this season of thanks giving, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to you, and my anticipation of the brighter future we are creating together.
With warmest wishes for a happy holiday season from my family to yours,
President Barack Obama
P.S. Kenneth Stepp wishes President Obama and you the reader of this blog a Happy Thanksgiving, also. Kenneth S. Stepp.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Democrats widen lead over Republican approval ratings in U.S. Congress.
We shoulda ditched Mitch when we had the chance.D
Friday, November 20, 2009
Higher-Income Tax may be needed to fund War says leading Democrat.
High-Income Tax May Be Needed for Afghan War Cost, Levin Says Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Viola Gienger
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for additional troops sent to Afghanistan and that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers.
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
Other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should bear responsibility for delivering half the additional troops needed to secure the conflict zone and train Afghan forces, Levin said. He didn’t predict how many troops President Barack Obama would add.
Levin also said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has faced calls for his resignation from Republicans in Congress, should stay as long as he has Obama’s confidence. The six-term senator said the administration was right to move the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to federal court in New York from a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Troop Decision Near
On Afghanistan, Obama may decide within a few weeks whether to grant a request from the top commander in the field, General Stanley McChrystal, for 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban, which harbored al-Qaeda before being toppled in the invasion following the Sept. 11 attacks. The U.S. contributes about 70,000 of the 110,000 foreign forces fighting the Afghan war.
Levin, who has supported adding U.S. troops to the war mainly to train the Afghan army and police to take over, said he might back an increase closer to 40,000 under certain conditions. They include the proportion that would be used for training, a plan for preparing enough Afghan troops and a “major program” to provide equipment to their forces.
“There’s a lot of other things involved in showing resolve beside just a troop level,” Levin said. A key element to gain support will be “that whatever is announced, it be part of a NATO-Afghan initiative,” he said.
* * *"
To contact the reporter on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 20, 2009 15:28 EST
By Viola Gienger
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for additional troops sent to Afghanistan and that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers.
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
Other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should bear responsibility for delivering half the additional troops needed to secure the conflict zone and train Afghan forces, Levin said. He didn’t predict how many troops President Barack Obama would add.
Levin also said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has faced calls for his resignation from Republicans in Congress, should stay as long as he has Obama’s confidence. The six-term senator said the administration was right to move the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to federal court in New York from a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Troop Decision Near
On Afghanistan, Obama may decide within a few weeks whether to grant a request from the top commander in the field, General Stanley McChrystal, for 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban, which harbored al-Qaeda before being toppled in the invasion following the Sept. 11 attacks. The U.S. contributes about 70,000 of the 110,000 foreign forces fighting the Afghan war.
Levin, who has supported adding U.S. troops to the war mainly to train the Afghan army and police to take over, said he might back an increase closer to 40,000 under certain conditions. They include the proportion that would be used for training, a plan for preparing enough Afghan troops and a “major program” to provide equipment to their forces.
“There’s a lot of other things involved in showing resolve beside just a troop level,” Levin said. A key element to gain support will be “that whatever is announced, it be part of a NATO-Afghan initiative,” he said.
* * *"
To contact the reporter on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 20, 2009 15:28 EST
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
