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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (793277)7/3/2014 11:15:07 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577883
 
Tyranny of the Majority Leader Harry Reid is ignoring centuries of Senate precedent in his rush to serve Obama.

By Dave Hoppe

Patience and reliability are the defining characteristics of successful leadership in the Senate. Good Senate majority leaders work through the rules of the Senate, which protect minority rights, to find a way to please a majority (or possibly a supermajority) of senators and move legislation and nominations to passage. They keep their commitments to open debate, even when their partisan colleagues would prefer to use simple majority power to crush the minority and avoid tough votes or compromises.

The Senate once prided itself on being “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” That it no longer is. According to the Congressional Research Service, Senator Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has obstructed the amendment process for his colleagues 85 times — more than double the total of his six predecessors combined. Neither Republican nor Democratic senators can offer amendments. This negates every senator’s right to debate and amend legislation and thus fully represent his or her constituents.

This was especially evident in May, when Senator Reid killed three bipartisan pieces of legislation in as many weeks. First, he refused to allow even a limited number of amendments to bipartisan energy legislation. The following week, he blocked amendments to a bipartisan tax-extenders bill. Finally, he reached into the Senate Judiciary Committee to torpedo a bipartisan patent bill the committee was poised to mark up. These are the types of bills that passed routinely when the regular order of open debate and amendments was followed in the Senate.

The atmosphere in the Senate has soured due to Senator Reid’s stranglehold on the legislative process. It has been made worse by his failure to keep his repeated — and very specific — promise to follow the Senate’s rules. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, he acknowledged on the Senate floor that “the proper way to change Senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules,” and he committed to “oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate’s rules other than through the regular order.”

Despite this very clear commitment, Senator Reid threatened to break the Senate’s rules at the beginning of this Congress. After Republicans agreed to procedural changes that gave the Democratic majority powers greater than those of any previous majority in the history of the Senate, Reid again unequivocally committed to follow the rules of the Senate.

But then he tried to obtain more. Last November, Senator Reid and the White House provoked a fight to make sure — “one way or the other,” as Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) admitted — that the D.C. Circuit would have a majority of Democratic judges who would support President Obama’s actions.

In 2005, Senate Republicans talked about using the nuclear option when Senate Democrats ill-advisedly set the precedent of filibustering circuit-court nominees — but they never pulled the trigger. Why? Discussing it was a means to an end — a way to confirm President Bush’s circuit-court nominees. Through perseverance and the threat of the nuclear option, a deal by the bipartisan Gang of 14 was struck, and most of those nominees were confirmed. And the rules of the Senate remained intact.

For Senator Reid, the nuclear option — and the power that went with it — was the end itself. He broke his promise and broke the Senate’s rules. And he did not try any regular-order mechanisms before doing so.

In 2000, Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez, two controversial Clinton nominees to the Ninth Circuit, had been held up for years. Most Republican senators opposed voting on their nominations. So did the Republican base. But Majority Leader Trent Lott had promised a vote on the nominations on the Senate floor and, acting against the advice of his Republican colleagues, he brought the nominations forward for a vote. Both were confirmed. Senator Lott knew that keeping his commitments was the right thing to do for the Senate.

The true skill of a majority leader lies in using the Senate rules to get things done and in keeping your word, even if it means voting on legislation some colleagues don’t like or taking more time and effort to get nominations passed. The fabric of the Senate has been shredded by Senator Reid’s failure to appreciate these two most basic qualities of leadership. Worse, his contempt for the established and tested rules of the Senate has eradicated important minority rights, robbing many Americans of a voice in the Senate.

— Dave Hoppe was chief of staff to Senate majority leader Trent Lott and Senate Republican whip Jon Kyl. He is president of Hoppe Strategies, a lobbying and consulting firm.



To: tejek who wrote (793277)7/3/2014 11:16:12 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1577883
 
Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has obstructed the amendment process for his colleagues 85 times — more than double the total of his six predecessors combined. Neither Republican nor Democratic senators can offer amendments. This negates every senator’s right to debate and amend legislation and thus fully represent his or her constituents.



To: tejek who wrote (793277)7/3/2014 11:19:08 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1577883
 
In May, when Senator Reid killed three bipartisan pieces of legislation in as many weeks.

First, he refused to allow even a limited number of amendments to bipartisan energy legislation.

The following week, he blocked amendments to a bipartisan tax-extenders bill.

Finally, he reached into the Senate Judiciary Committee to torpedo a bipartisan patent bill the committee was poised to mark up.

These are the types of bills that passed routinely when the regular order of open debate and amendments was followed in the Senate.



To: tejek who wrote (793277)7/3/2014 11:19:38 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1577883
 
The atmosphere in the Senate has soured due to Harry Reid’s stranglehold on the legislative process.



To: tejek who wrote (793277)7/3/2014 11:19:52 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1577883
 
The fabric of the Senate has been shredded by Harry Reid.



To: tejek who wrote (793277)7/3/2014 11:22:17 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577883
 
40% of unemployed workers are millennials
New research reveals the growing problem of youth unemployment

July 3, 2014, 10:36 a.m. EDT

marketwatch.com

By Quentin Fottrell, MarketWatch

The jobs market is improving, according to government data released Thursday, but millennials are still left out in the cold. They’re suffering more than any other age group, new research finds.

Some 40% of unemployed workers are millennials, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce released to MarketWatch, greater than Generation X (37%) and baby boomers (23%). That equates to 4.6 million unemployed millennials — 2 million long-term — 4.2 million unemployed Xers and 2.5 million jobless baby boomers.

“I was surprised by how high that number is for millennials,” says Andrew Hanson, research analyst at Georgetown University, who conducted the analysis. “Unemployment is becoming a youth problem.”


Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce analysisEnlarge Image

The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 6.1% in June from 6.3% in May, the government announced Thursday, adding 288,000 jobs. Average hourly earnings rose 2% on the year in June, while consumer price inflation rose 2.1% between May 2013 to May 2014. But the unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds, including those who have given up looking for work, is 15.2% in June, according to a calculation by Generation Opportunity, a non-profit think-tank based in Arlington, Va. “The headline figure for unemployment doesn’t tell the whole story,” says Dan Schawbel, author of “Promote Yourself: The New Rules for Career Success” and founder of Millennial Branding, a management and consulting firm.

Since the recession, the youngest job-hunters are being beaten by the oldest. The number of jobs held by baby boomers rose by 9% from 2007 to 2013, a gain of 1.9 million jobs, while the millennial workforce only snagged 110,000 jobs, up 0.3%, according to new analysis by software firm CareerBuilder and labor market data and software firm Economic Modeling Specialists International. (Generation X jobs fared worse, dropping 2.6 million, or 1%.)

“Entry-level jobs were choked off after the recession and those that were open were highly competitive,” says CareerBuilder spokesman Ryan Hunt.

Ashley Meyer, 28, is one of the luckier ones. She graduated from Salem State College with a Bachelor of Science degree in communications with a minor in graphic design in 2010 and planned to go into advertising, but could not survive on freelance work. She has a job, working for $10.65 an hour at a department store in Peabody, Mass. “At least I have health benefits and a 401(k),” she says. “I need to be able to pay my bills.” Her paycheck, however, can vary dramatically week to week, as the lion’s share of her income is based on commission. “It can be very, very good and very, very bad,” she says.

Delayed career starts could impact the earning potential of a generation of Americans. The average worker today doesn’t earn the national median salary until the age of 30; in 1980, workers reached that point in their careers at age 26, Hanson says. One reason: Between 1987 and 2000, 30 million net jobs were added in the U.S., but when many millennials were entering the workforce between 2000 and 2013 only 4 million jobs were added. “Young people are the first to be let go by companies in a recession and the last to be let back in,” he adds.


Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce analysis

And young men may also fare worse than young women. “With structural changes in the economy, there’s been a gradual decline in blue-collar jobs, which used to give more young men traction at an earlier age,” Hanson says. “Men especially have been failing to beat these entry-level standards in the labor market,” he says. Job seekers increasingly need a bachelor’s or more to compete in the labor market. Indeed, the male/female ratio of job losses during the recession was 2.6 to 1, partly because women held more jobs in less cyclical industries, according to the Labor Department.

The high level of unemployment could leave a generation of disillusioned young voters — a sizable block. Only 25% of 18- to 29-year-olds will “definitely be voting” in the midterm elections in November, down from 34% five months ago, according to an April 2014 poll carried out by the Harvard University Institute of Politics. Some 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they approved of the performance of President Obama, a drop from 54% a year earlier. Millennials also make up a considerably powerful group. There are 89 million millennials compared with 49 million Generation Xers and 75 million baby boomers.

But as the job market is improving, some say millennials may actually be in the pole position. “When an employer has a choice to fill a position, age is important because older workers demand higher salaries,” Schawbel says. “From a budgeting perspective, someone who is younger, cheaper and more tech savvy can have an advantage.” Meyer has started looking for receptionist and administration work, but remains optimistic. “There are a lot of us in the same boat,” she says. “It’s not like I’m 50 and trying to start a career. It won’t be the end of the world if I don’t start my career until I’m 32. I’m waiting it out.”