Archive for the ‘Democrat Party’ Category
Liberals have long clamored for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to play hardball with Republicans, and are excited to see their demands met.
Finally, they argue, the left will see courts and agencies filled with appointees who will protect President Obama’s key legislative achievements.
Democrats are also reigniting hopes for long-stalled initiatives.
“This is a big victory for the progressive agenda,” said one Senate Democratic aide. “The D.C. Circuit alone is likely to make a huge difference on a host of issues progressives care about, from women’s health to worker organizing rights to Wall Street reform and climate change.”
The Senate voted 52-48 on Thursday to change the filibuster rules so that only majority votes will be needed to move forward on procedural motions related to presidential nominations. The only exceptions are nominees to the Supreme Court.
The Senate vote was triggered by three stalled nominations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country, but other nominations will also be bumped along.
At the top of the list is Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), the president’s nominee to take over the housing regulator monitoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Watt is expected to lead a significant shakeup in the nation’s housing market once he takes office by pushing to assist struggling homeowners.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2013/11/left-emboldened-nuclear-move/#4dpl1EmXCHB9bVDH.99
For all of their mutual public admiration, Presidents Clinton and Obama react differently to political trouble. Bill moved to the middle, while Barack always moves left. So it’s no surprise that Mr. Obama is responding to his ObamaCare rollout slump by doing his best Elizabeth Warren imitation.
Mr. Obama returned to his favorite theme of rising income inequality on Wednesday, which he called “the defining challenge of our time.” He ought to know since few Presidents have done more to increase inequality than he has. Median household income has fallen since the economic recovery began, while the rich who own capital assets have done very well thanks to the Federal Reserve’s focus on reflating stock and home prices. Mr. Obama is the Chief Economist of Nottingham posing as Robin Hood.
The President’s political purpose here is what the pros call rallying your base. Many Democrats are as dismayed as Republicans at ObamaCare’s rollout, so the White House wants to change the subject and give MSNBC viewers something else to debate. Mr. Obama didn’t have much new to offer that would help the economy or the middle class, so instead he’s decided to escalate that hardy liberal perennial, the minimum wage.
Earlier this year he proposed an increase to $9 an hour from the current $7.25. That has gone nowhere on Capitol Hill and Mr. Obama is less popular than he was, so the White House response is to raise the bidding to $10.10. If his popularity keeps falling, Mr. Obama will be demanding $15 by next November.
One liberal highlight from last month’s elections was when 60% of New Jersey voters approved a state minimum wage hike to $9.25 an hour. Unions now plan to put wage increases of $9 to $10 an hour on the 2014 ballot in at least five states—Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri and South Dakota. The President recently endorsed the bill by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Rep. George Miller of California to raise the wage floor to $10.10 by 2015 with automatic indexing for inflation thereafter. Look for Harry Reid to call it up for a Senate vote next week.
Democrats are even proposing to more than triple the wage floor for the nation’s three million or so workers who receive tips as part of their pay. The minimum (not counting their tips, which can often average $10 to $20 an hour) would rise to just over $7 an hour from $2.13 an hour now. This could hammer the job market for waiters, waitresses, bartenders, bus boys and valets. A 2012 study in the Southern Economic Journal concludes that “it is unusual to find any other occupation where cash wages have a stronger negative effect” on hiring than for tipped workers.
These increases would all be phased in through 2015, which is when ObamaCare’s employer mandates finally kick in. This creates a double burden for small businesses with more than 49 employees. If these employers don’t provide health care and instead pay the penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee, the cost of a minimum-wage worker would rise by the equivalent of another $1 an hour. Workers who used to cost $7.25 an hour would cost closer to $11.10 in 2015. If employers start to provide ObamaCare-approved health benefits, the cost of hiring an additional minimum-wage worker would rise further.
Question: Where are employers in the low-margin Obama economy going to find this extra money? George Miller and the unions say businesses can afford it. But when was the last time they met a payroll?
Our readers are familiar with the mountains of evidence that minimum wages lead to fewer workers hired. Small minimum-wage hikes have small negative employment effects, but raising a worker’s cost by 50% or more risks pricing many low-skilled workers out of the job market.
Economist David Neumark, an expert on minimum-wage economic studies, says that an economic rule-of-thumb is that every 10% increase in the minimum wage reduces teen employment by about 1% to 3%. In October the U.S. teen jobless rate was 22.2% and for black teens it was 36%. The Obama minimum wage combined with the health mandate could mean up to a 10% reduction in jobs for the poor and young. Liberals must care deeply about inequality because their policies do so much to increase it.
Not that this matters to desperate Democrats, who are looking for any alternative to debating ObamaCare and see that a higher minimum wage polls well. Steve Israel, who runs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is telling donors that the minimum-wage issue will lift liberal voter turnout in 2014, help Americans forget about losing their health insurance, and save the jobs of imperiled Democrats. If that means fewer jobs for the young and least skilled, so be it.
by Ben Shapiro
On Sunday, appearing on ABC’s This Week with fill-in host Martha Raddatz, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) admitted that Democrats knew full well that Americans would be booted from their health insurance plans as an effect of Obamacare implementation.
When asked whether Democrats were misled by President Obama about whether Americans would be able to keep their plans in the individual insurance market, Gillibrand answered: “He should’ve just been specific. No, we all knew.”
She added that the whole point of Obamacare was to “covering things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy.” The redistributive nature of Obamacare, Gillibrand stated, was the point of the program; anyone claiming ignorance, therefore, is not telling the truth.
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
The thing about the shutdown that angers me the most is the truth. The truth is that this debt-cpiling method of negotiating a budget and spending limits is the process preferred by the president and his party. It was selected by the president and his party very early on in his first administration.
The time-tested and legal way to negotiate a budget is for the Senate and the House to each pass a budget, then negotiate to produce one budget from the two offered, and then send that to the president. The Senate, run by Harry Reid and dominated by Democrats, has refused to do this, and until this year refused to produce a budget for more than four years. This leaves the House only one remedy, and that is to use its constitutional power of the purse to withhold funds and try to force negotiation.
Each time the House tries this, the president and the Democrats, reinforced by the media, call them unreasonable and complain that threatening to shut down the government is irresponsible. But we must remember, the House is acting at the behest of constituents who see the danger in continuing to print money and spend more than we take in, with disastrous long-term consequences for our country and every American — indeed, for the world.
Many congressmen were specifically elected in 2012 to work as hard as they could to reduce spending and get our budget balanced. Each time, however, the press spouts the party line of the president and points fingers at the Republicans. They completely ignore the facts that Reid and the president have chosen this path by their refusal to follow the law and reach a budget agreement the way presidents and governments did for decades before them.
If the president and the Democratic leadership really wanted to negotiate — if they were really interested in working together and reaching compromise that involves all the people — they would use the legislative process designed to do that. But they force us all to live with their choice so they can have everything they want — without having to compromise.
by Ken Roberts Apollo Beach
Yep, she really said it on Thursday, 7/25/13, in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And the quote below from the LA Times is priceless. Sometimes even the L.A. Times gets it right.
Kurt Nimmo: “Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her anti-firearms bill.”
Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:
“Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California , but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine , even comes close.
When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington , we are Number One.
There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’.
The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab.
You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”
Columnist Burt Prelutsky,
Los Angeles Times
Would you be surprised to learn that the biggest funder of animal testing in the country is the federal government?
The government spends as much as $14.5 billion per year on animal experimentation, with some projects siphoning off taxpayer dollars for decades and resulting in the cruel treatment of an unknown number of animals.
According to an analysis of government data, the National Institutes of Health spends between $12 billion and nearly $14.5 billion on animal testing every year. According to NIH documents, about 47 percent of research grants have an animal research-based component. This number has been fairly stable over the last decade.
“$14.5 billion could provide a lot of tax relief for Americans. It could help pay down national debt or help prevent a shutdown,” says Anthony Bellotti, founder and executive director of the watchdog group, White Coat Waste Project. “Instead, it’s paying for experiments in which small dogs are forced to run on treadmills until they have heart attacks at schools like Wayne State University, and to study the effects of crystal meth on monkeys at UCLA. How can we justify government waste like this?”
The controversial nature of government-backed animal testing has actually created an unlikely coalition of fiscal conservatives and animals rights activists who usually don’t share common ground. Both sides argue that NIH funding for animal testing should be cut.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals urged House Speaker John Boehner to “expand the planned 7.8 percent cuts to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) budget by cutting all funding for studies involving animals.”
PETA also argues that NIH grants go towards experiments that “involve cruel and expensive experiments on animals that will not save human lives.”
In the name of science?
One professor at the Oregon Health and Science University got $9.5 million in grants in the last few years to test the effects of obesity and diabetes on monkeys. Researchers would fatten up pregnant monkeys to see if their offspring to test for health problems and anxiety problems, like if the baby monkeys were afraid of a Mr. Potato Head doll. PETA noted that the baby monkeys were also taken out of the womb, killed and had their brains dissected.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/05/feds-spend-up-to-14-5-billion-annually-on-animal-testing/#ixzz2h2feVDLS