SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60125)2/26/2009 1:08:51 AM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224714
 
kenyboy: Mr. Obama also said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market." Who gutted which regulations?

Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?

Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd's threat to filibuster Mr. Bush's needed reforms.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60125)2/26/2009 6:03:20 AM
From: tonto2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224714
 
The proposed budget increases government spending at way above the inflation rate...lol, sure they are going to be a better government for us...this spending is way out of control.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60125)2/26/2009 6:35:13 AM
From: tonto2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224714
 
House OKs $410B bill to boost spending

You now even get to pay for tattoo removal...

Obama admin admits deficit will be much higher than they thought last week...(g)

Washington is serious about the budget...(g)

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House approved $410 billion legislation Wednesday that boosted domestic programs, bristled with earmarks and chipped away at policies left behind by the Bush administration. The vote was 245-178, largely along party lines.

Republicans assailed the measure as too costly — particularly on the heels of a $787 billion stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed last week. But Democrats jabbed back.

"The same people who drove the economy into the ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., pointing out the large increase in deficits that President George W. Bush and GOP-controlled Congresses amassed.

From the GOP side, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas said the legislation was "going to grow the government 8.3 percent ... but the family budget which has to pay for the federal budget only grew at 1.3 percent last year."

The debate occurred one day after Obama told Congress in a prime time television address that he intends to cut deficits in half over the next four years, and one day before he submits tax and spending plans for the coming year. Given the extraordinary costs of the financial industry bailout and the stimulus, the White House projects this year's budget shortfall will be $1.5 trillion, triple the previous record of $455 billion in 2008.

In a symbolic bow to the recession, Democrats included in the spending measure a prohibition on a cost-of-living increase for members of Congress for the year.

Overall, the legislation would provided increases of roughly 8 percent for the federal agencies it covered, about $32 billion more than last year.

The bill is intended to allow smooth functioning of the government through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. The Senate has yet to vote on its version.

After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects — a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago.

Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service.

Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said the bill included at least a dozen earmarks for clients of PMA Group, a lobbying company now at the center of a federal corruption investigation.

"It's simply not responsible to allow a soon-to-be-criminally indicted lobbying firm to win funding, all borrowed, in this bill," he said. No charges have been filed against the firm or its principals, although the company's offices were raided earlier this month, and it has announced plans to disband by the end of the month.

Federal prosecutors are investigating PMA Group's founder and president, Paul Magliochetti, who is a former top aide to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense programs.

In remarks on the House floor, Republican leader John Boehner urged Obama to veto the legislation, citing earmarks.

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs responded only in general terms whether that was possible.

"There is great concern in this building and by the president about earmarks," Gibbs said. "Without having looked specifically at a piece of legislation, I'm hesitant to throw out that four-letter word, `Veto.'"

After eight years without control of the White House, congressional Democrats also used the legislation to target several policies of former President Bush.

Under the bill, Mexican-licensed trucks are banned from operating outside commercial zones along the border with the United States. The Teamsters union, which supported Obama's election last year, had sought the move. The Bush administration backed a pilot program to permit up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican motor carriers access to U.S. roads.

Bush administration restrictions on travel to Cuba were loosened in the legislation, to permit more frequent visits and expand the list of family members permitted to make trips to see relatives on the Communist nation-island.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., took aim at a provision that he said would vastly broaden the government's ability to invoke the threat of climate change to halt economic development. "Most all of the shovel-ready projects on the trillion-dollar stimulus bill would in fact be at risk," he said.

Nominally, the provision halts implementation of a Bush-era regulation that lists the polar bear as a threatened species, and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said it would merely give the new administration 60 days to decide its fate.

Democrats also inserted a provision into the bill to end a program that allows students in the District of Columbia to use federal funds to attend private schools of their choice. Boehner, who helped establish the program as part of a political bargain several years ago, called the move "hideous."



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (60125)2/26/2009 10:45:16 AM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224714
 
ACLU Signs Add to Washington State's Immigration Storm
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
By Jana Winter
foxnews.com

An immigration showdown is brewing on Washington's Olympic Peninsula, where simmering tensions and borderline hostility have fueled a turf war between the local community and the Border Patrol agents assigned to protect it.

Now the American Civil Liberties Union has jumped into the ring and upped the ante, rolling out a campaign that will install signs inside buses informing riders of their rights — to ignore Border Patrol agents.

The signs, entitled, "YOUR RIGHTS with border patrol agents on this bus," makes three points:

• If you're a U.S. citizen, you don't have to prove it.
• If you're not a U.S. citizen and are 18 or older, you must show your immigration papers to federal agents.
• Everyone has the right to remain silent.

The campaign, which could start as early as next week, is the latest in a series of expanding grassroots efforts aimed at curbing the expansion of Border Patrol forces and the powers of its agents.

Click here to see ACLU flyer.

Last summer the Border Patrol beefed up its presence in the region, and in October it began conducting random roadside stops at checkpoints located at and within the international border to combat, what it says, is a real threat to national security.

This move has put them at odds with human rights groups and even local law enforcement — some who have rejected federal immigration money to protest the Border Patrol's tactics.

The ACLU has joined forces with left-leaning groups around the state — lavender farmers, retirees, activists, grandparents, Socialists, Green Party members, politicians, Unitarians, Christians, vineyard owners, hippies and other assorted protesters — who say these measures have infringed on people's civil liberties.

The ACLU says it is just informing frightened residents, U.S. citizens and immigrants — both legal and illegal — of their rights.

They say Border Patrol agents spend their time rounding up illegal immigrants well inland of the border and wasting their resources and manpower by conducting immigration status checks on local buses and at random checkpoints on roads well inside the border.

"They set up random checkpoints, no suspicion of criminal activity or no suspicion they'd even near the border, continued to follow and stop random people and demand citizenship information from them," said Jennifer Shaw, Deputy Director of the ACLU Washington. "They go up to folks and say, 'Are you a citizen?"

But critics of the ACLU campaign say it is designed to give illegal immigrants — and possibly terrorists — a playbook for evading federal law enforcement agents working to secure one of the most dangerous and porous borders in the country at a time when the threat to national security is particularly high.

"These are the places that terrorists or criminals would use to egress away from the border. There are only a few ways to get in," said Michael Bermudez, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman in Blaine, Wash., of the recent bus-sign campaign.

Bermudez said there's good reason for Border Patrol agents to be pursuing illegal immigrants.

"We're concerned with securing the areas between ports of entry, concerned with preventing terrorists and their mass weapons of terrorism," he said.

ACLU's pamphlets and signs will be posted inside buses that will pick up and drop off passengers at the Port Angeles ferry terminal -- right across the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Victoria, B.C.

That's where Algerian-born Ahmed Ressam docked on American soil in 1999 with explosives in the trunk of his car and a plan to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve. The "Millennium Bomber" was apprehended by Customs and Border agents and is currently serving a 22-year sentence.

Border Patrol agents also point out that the 2010 Winter Olympics will be held in Vancouver, not far from the crossing.

"Heightened border security is not only appropriate, it is necessary," Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, told FOXNews.com.

"We've got the Olympics coming up. Do you know what terrorists want? Terrorists want to make the biggest splash they can to impair different countries with a different world view than they have, and making that splash at the Olympics is got to be close to the top of their list, if not the top."

Lois Danks, 62, of Sequim, Wash., who manages computer systems for a state health center, said people live in a constant state of anxiety and fear.

"The Border Patrol SUV starts driving down the middle of a street out of nowhere — and it's pretty quiet out here — it's pretty scary even if you're a citizen," said Danks. "That's not American values."

Dank, is also a coordinator of the Stop the Checkpoints Committee, a grassroots umbrella group comprised of splinter organizations — religious, spiritual, civil rights, human rights and assorted interest groups — from all over the state of Washington that are working with the ACLU to circulate petitions and protest the Border Patrol.

She said that the group is planning a "big, big" march on International Women's Day, March 7.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., also a member of the Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the agency's new secretary, Janet Napolitano, on February 9, calling for an investigation into the Border Patrol's tactics on the Olympic Peninsula.

Click here to see letter from Dicks to Napolitano.

Dicks' chief of staff George Behan said the Washington state lawmaker will, possibly as early as next week, get an audience with Napolitano.

He said one of the main issues Dicks wants to discuss with Napolitano is how best to utilize the Border Patrol, which is now spending much of its time away focusing on finding and detaining illegal immigrants. "The issue is limited amount of resources," Behan said. "The payoff seems to be pretty minimal. It's largely farm workers," he said. "This isn't Al Qaeda."

But Lungren said the danger is real and the actions of the agents fall within Border Patrol guidelines.

"There is nothing that we ask our Border Patrol agents to do that's inconsistent with our constitutions," Lungren told FOXNews.com. "There are certain questions that they ask at the border or within reasonable distance from the border because they're at the border or within reasonable distance from the border — and that's considered reasonable."

As for the community upset about Border Patrol agents on buses, the target of the new campaign the ACLU is rolling out, Lungren said that the general public isn't always privy to national security issues.

"People should be not surprised that Border Patrol should be asking people on conveyances moving from north to south these questions."