Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (43962)	6/30/2010 3:16:08 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Majority of U.S. Workers Lost Jobs, Wages or Hours, Pew Says June 30, 2010, 11:56 AM EDT By Timothy R. Homan businessweek.com June 30 (Bloomberg) -- More than half of U.S. workers were either unemployed or experienced reductions in hours or wages since the recession began in December 2007, according to a private report. > The worst economic slump since the 1930s has affected 55 percent of adults in the labor force, the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan organization, said today. The survey found that 32 percent of employees where jobless at some point during the past 30 months. The pace of hiring suggests it will take years for the world’s largest economy to recover the more than 8 million jobs lost during the contraction. A slow rebound in employment stifles consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. “A unique feature of the Great Recession is that, for the first time, the majority of the unemployed workers had lost their jobs for good,” Pew said in the report. “Households have adopted a more fiscally conservative path since the recession started.” The majority of Americans, or 54 percent, say the economy is still in recession, while 41 percent say it is beginning to recover, the study showed. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which is responsible for determining U.S. business cycles, has not declared an end to the recession. The survey of 2,967 adults was conducted by telephone from May 11 through May 31. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, Pew said. --Editors: Carlos Torres, Christopher Wellisz To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at thoman1@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz cwellisz@bloomberg.net

To: longnshort who wrote (43962)	7/7/2010 11:06:47 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Kagan's Nanny State Michael Tanner, New York Post July 1, 2010 Suppose that the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it would deal with the obesity crisis and improve the health and welfare of the American people -- by mandating that every American eat three helpings of vegetables and three helpings of fruit every day. Anyone caught failing to eat the required food would be subject to a fine or tax. Would such a law be constitutional? Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put that question to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan this week. Kagan, the US solicitor general, couldn't answer. In fact, she implied that under the court's "expansive" view of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, a fruit and vegetable mandate might be just fine. Now, some may think that such a hypothetical question is silly, other than giving us a glimpse of Kagan's virtually unlimited view of government power. Congress would never pass such a "dumb" law, to use Kagan's term -- would it? But Congress has just taken a very similar step, mandating that every American purchase a government-designed package of health-insurance benefits. The issue is now before the courts -- there's a hearing today. And supporters of the mandate justify it under exactly the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that Kagan cited. In fact, the health-care bill itself says that the mandate is constitutional because "the individual responsibility requirement . . . is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce." The Founders must be spinning in their graves. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." It was intended to prevent states from erecting trade barriers among themselves, as was common practice under the Articles of Confederation (our governing national document before ratification of the Constitution), and to allow the federal government to deal with such issues as river navigation. However, in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, the high court interpreted the clause so as to give Congress the authority to reach wholly intrastate-economic activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce. In that case, the federal government, in order to help farmers by keeping wheat prices high, had imposed limits on how much wheat farmers could grow. One farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat not for sale but to feed to his own chickens. He argued that since he wasn't selling wheat -- let alone selling it across state lines -- he wasn't subject to the restrictions. The court, setting the foundation for the modern regulatory state, held that because Filburn's farming reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed from others, and because wheat was traded nationally, growing his own wheat was affecting interstate commerce, and therefore could be regulated. But the individual mandate contained in the health-care reform bill goes beyond regulating even intrastate activity to regulate nonactivity. That is: Everything you do or don't do could be seen as affecting interstate commerce -- so, in this interpretation, everything you do or don't do could be regulated by Congress. Thus, Congress would be free to order you to take or not take a job, to sell or not sell your house, to buy or not buy a car -- or to eat more fruits and vegetables. This individual-insurance mandate is unprecedented in US governance. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, "a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States." However, as Sen. Coburn's question and Kagan's response make clear, if the courts uphold the mandate's constitutionality, the last limits on federal-government power will be gone. It was easy to see the debate over health-care reform as being about the best way to deliver and pay for health care. But it was always about much more than that. If nothing else, we owe a debt of gratitude to Solicitor General Kagan for making absolutely clear what is really at stake: freedom. Michael Tanner is a senior fel low at the Cato Institute. nypost.com

To: longnshort who wrote (43962)	7/14/2010 1:58:23 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Opposition to Kagan Nomination Continues to Build by Connie Hair 07/09/2010 More statements opposing the nomination of Elena Kagan to serve on the Supreme Court have trickled in as the district work period closes this week and Congress heads back to work in Washington, D.C. next week. Sens. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), John Isakson (R-Ga.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have added their voice of opposition over the break to the chorus which includes Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and former Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Kagan should no doubt clear the committee as her hard-left radical politics are right in line with the 12 majority Democrats serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only seven Republicans currently serve on the committee. (Senate Judiciary Committee member breakdown) Democrats will need 60 votes to bring Kagan’s nomination to the floor for a confirmation vote by the full Senate. With the death of West Virginia Ku Klux Klan founder and Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, the Democrat caucus controls 58 votes. If the caucus stands firm, they’ll need two Republicans to put them over the top. The standard for cloture is 60 in favor as opposed to 41 against. Also in question is Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), the wildcard. Specter voted against Kagan’s confirmation as Solicitor General for her failure to be forthcoming, saying in a letter addressed to Kagan he considered her answers “inadequate for confirmation purposes.” Specter accused Kagan of stonewalling giving answers in an exchange at the confirmation hearings before the 4th of July break. Sens. Kit Bond (Mo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (Maine), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) all voted to confirm Sotomayor and have not yet announced their votes on Kagan. According to the latest Rasmussen polling, only 36% of likely voters polled support Kagan’s nomination. A full 42% oppose the nomination while 22% are undecided. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can also follow Connie Hair and Human Events on FACEBOOK. humanevents.com