Right Wing Granny

Tampa Bay Online posted an Associated Press article today about the House of Representatives failure to pass a bill to help the first responders of the 9/11 terrorist attacks pay for the health problems they have encountered because of the toxic fumes they breathed in the rescue and cleanup efforts.

There were procedural things done in the process of placing this bill before the House of Representatives that need to be considered in understanding exactly what happened.  (I will be posting more on this bill and what happened as more information becomes available).

Democratic leaders opted to consider the bill under a procedure that blocks any GOP amendments to the bill.  That procedure requires a two-thirds vote for approval rather than a simple majority.  The bill failed to win a two-thirds majority.  The actual vote tally can be found at thomas.gov.  If you look at the tally, you will see that the vote was largely along party lines, although some Republicans voted for it and others voted against it.  Some Democrats voted against it and some voted for it.  The actual vote was 255 for and 159 against, with 18 not voting.

The bottom line here is simple.  Had the bill gone forward in the usual manner and Republicans allowed to make amendments to it, it would have needed a simple majority to pass, and it would have passed.  Because the atmosphere right now in Washington is so toxic, a procedureal maneuver was used by the Democrats to keep Republicans from adding input to the bill.

This is campaign season.  The atmosphere will only get worse.  I am not sure exactly when Congress is going home, but they need to leave now and think about what they are doing to the country.  We need to remember all of this foolishness in November.  There are probably less than ten people in Congress right now that I think deserve to be re-elected in November.  If you have a longer list, I would love to see it!

Yesterday Arutz Sheva (Israelnationalnews.com) reported on living conditions in Gaza.  According to the article:

"Egyptian journalist Ashraf Abu al-Houl has added his report to others who were surprised to discover a "prosperous" Gaza in which prices are low and luxury businesses are booming. Al-Houl's story of his trip to Gaza and his realization that "in actual terms, Gaza is not under siege" was written up in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)."

The article points out that the prosperity is not enjoyed by everyone.  Ashraf Abu al-Houl reports that, "The luxury resorts and wide range of consumer goods are enjoyed by "only a few groups," he said, primarily those who own smuggling tunnels to Egypt and those who work for international organizations such as the United Nations' UNRWA and who do not include or aid the rest of the population."

It is interesting that the smugglers, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and other international organizations that are supposedly helping the people are living the life of luxury.  It seems as if those organizations need to do a better job of sharing the wealth. 

National Review Online is reporting today on "The Amnesty Memo."  This is an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo obtained by NATIONAL REVIEW.  This memo states that the agency is considering how to enact "meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."   In plain English, that means how to pass immigration reform without the bother of going through Congress.

The article lists some of the provisions in the memo:

"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements."

The article concludes:

"In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy -- and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation's de facto amnesty."

We already have the Environmental Protection Agency attempting to enact Cap and Trade laws without going through Congress, now we have Immigration pondering if they can initiate amnesty for illegal aliens without bothering Congress with the details.  Unless Congress decides to take a stand against this sort of thing, we will lose our democracy. 

I am not a lawyer and do not totally understand a lot of what I am hearing about the decision yesterday to prevent the immediate implementation of the Arizona illegal immigration law.  Therefore, I will give some perspectives from people who have the background to understand what just happened.

Andy McCarthy at The Corner at National Review Online pointed out yesterday that the law in Arizona is in compliance with federal law.  He states, "The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts."

If you follow the link to the article, you will see his total argument that the decision reached yesterday was not based on sound law. 

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line commented yesterday:

"...Other judges might have waited to see how Arizona implemented the law before striking it down based on a construction Arizona has repudiated. Judge Bolton did neither.

"Judge Bolton also appears to have overstated the burden the Arizona law places on lawfully present aliens. According to Heather McDonald and Mark Krikorian, the number of lawfully present aliens who cannot instantly establish their right to be in the country is small. And even as them, their right to be here probably can be established quickly by contacting federal authorities.

"In the weighing of interests required before a preliminary injunction is issued, it would seem that Arizona's interest in coping with half a million or so illegal immigrants and the havoc this influx is causing outweighs the small burden the law may impose on a relatively small number of lawfully present aliens. In any event, I don't believe the contrary view is established in advance of seeing how the law actually works."

It seems to me that not enforcing federal immigration laws puts a huge burden on the residents of Arizona.  Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the world.  I suspect that strict enforcement of immigration laws would change that quickly.

CNS News today reports:

""Aliens from countries of special interest to the United States such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan (known as special-interest aliens) also illegally enter the United States through the [southwest border] region," Richard Stana, the GAO homeland security and justice issues director, said in a report issued July 22 on alien smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border."

I understand that the lack of border security has to do with the Obama Administration's push to give illegal aliens amnesty so that they can become Democrat voters.  However, I am concerned that in their pursuit of voters, the Obama Administraiton is endangering our country.  You can see the video of President Obama before he was president saying that border security and amnesty were a politcal 'trade off'' at Hot Air.  It was posted on June 22 of this year after Senator Kyl stated that he had been told by the President that we would not have border security until amnesty was passed. 

Yesterday's Washington Times reported on how the Justice Department is dealing with two distinct classes of voters. 

According to the article:

"Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus."

At the same time the Obama Justice Department is undermining the law that insists that miltary absentee ballots be mailed 45 days before an election, the website of the Justice Department devotes a large section - 2,314 words - to advising felons how to regain voting privileges. 

According to the article:

"... Justice Department official Rebecca Wertz told a Feb. 1 conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State that the new law's requirements(mailing military absentee ballots 45 days before an election) are somehow open to interpretation. On July 28, an attendee at that conference - heretofore uninterviewed - told The Washington Times that Ms. Wertz's message was "totally undermining" the law. The earlier reports actually underplayed the effect of Ms. Wertz's comments. "It was even more pronounced at the meeting," said the source. "She undermined [the law] right in front of everybody. When I heard what she was saying, I thought: 'You've got to be kidding!' ... It was a clear reversal of roles for Justice to no longer be enforcing the law."

Senator Cornyn is holding up the nomination of James M. Cole until Eric Holder takes steps to ensure that the 45-day rule will be enforced.  Among other things, Senator Cornyn is asking that the Justice Department provide a state-by-state accounting of compliance efforts.  I, for one, hope Senator Cornyn sticks to his guns.  Our military deserves the right to have their votes counted.

Reuters is reporting today on the blocking of key parts of Arizona's immigration law by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.  Judge Bolton blocked the provision that required a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.  Also blocked were provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for people without proper documents to tout for work in public places.

If someone is here illegally and commits a serious crime, why in the world should we keep them in an American jail?  Why can't we establish their status and ship them back to their home country?  It would be cheaper for everyone and would provide some protection from repeat offenders for Americans.  How many innocent people and police officers have to die before we begin to enforce our borders?   How many signs do we have to put up telling Americans to stay out of their own parks due to drug runners and murderers?  This is our country--the threats caused by illegal immigration have as much to do with national security as terrorism does.  When are we going to protect our own country?

I firmly believe that forcing British Petroleum to set aside $32.2 billion (in a fund they would not administer) for the Gulf oil spill was a shakedown.  Regardless of the integrity of the man overseeing the payment program, I suspect that somewhere hidden in the small print, Chicago politics are in play.  Well, there are some unintended consequences.

CBS News reported yesterday that BP took a $17 billion loss in the second quarter. 

According to the article:

"BP set aside $32.2 billion for the cost of the spill, a charge that led to the $17 billion quarterly loss. But according to the msnbc.com report, BP plans to offset the entire cost of the spill against its tax bill, which will slash its U.S. taxes by $10 billion."

I would like to point out that BP did nothing illegal or unethical here--they took legally allowed tax write-offs.  What this essentially means is that the government treasury will be receiving $10 billion less revenue because of BP's losses.  BP may be paying for the clean-up and the impact on the Gulf residents, but, as usual with this administration, the American taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Had the administration allowed BP to pay expenses as they came up, I suspect their tax burden would not have been as greatly affected.

I really think this is poetic justice.

One of the current debates in Congress is whether or not to let "George Bush's tax cuts for the rich" expire.  Well, first of all, "tax cuts for the rich" is not an accurate description of the law.  What is not generally mentioned is the fact that many of the "rich" are what is known as "S" Corporations.  These are small businesses that are generally responsible for growing the economy by hiring new people.  Because the total business income is reported on a personal income form, the person filing the form will look "rich" to the uninformed observer.  What needs to be considered are the expenses against that income and the fact that this is business income and not someone's personal income.  If the tax cuts on these corporations are allowed to expire, people will lose their jobs and fewer people will be hired.  That is not necessarily what you want to happen in a recession.

Anyway, just for the record, let's look at who pays taxes.  The information that follows is taken from an article posted at Americans For Tax Reform yesterday.

• As of 2006, the tax burden of the top 1 percent of taxpayers exceeds the tax burden of the bottom 95 percent combined.  Moreover, according to the National Taxpayers Union, households in the top 5% by income have been paying about 60% of the federal income tax bill for years.
• As the New York Times reports, "the Top 5 percent in income earners--those households earning $210,000 or more--account for about one-third of consumer outlays, including spending on goods and services, interest payments on consumer debt and cash gifts, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve date by Moody's Analytics.  That means the purchasing decisions of the rich have an outsize effect on economic data."
• In 2009, approximately 47 percent of U.S. households paid no federal income taxes.  While 2009 had fewer households owing taxes than other years due to some allegedly temporary tax breaks and a lagging economy, the Tax Foundation reports that close to 40 percent of households owe no federal income taxes in an average year.  According to the IRS, 67 percent of Single Head of Household returns in 2005 had no tax liability whatsoever.
• The proportion of American tax returns that incur no tax liability increased by 59 percent between 1989 and 2007, the latest year for which full analysis is available.

The thing to remember here is that the income tax is based on wages and salaries earned--not on accumulated wealth.  Any increase in taxes is going to hit the middle class before it impacts anyone else.  The very rich will find tax shelters to get around new taxes, and those of us in the middle class will pick up the slack.  One of the characteristics of a socialist country is a very wealthy upper class, a very poor lower class, and an almost non-existent middle class.  That is the direction our tax code is headed in.

Merco Press is reporting today that outgoing Colombian president Alvaro Uribe criticized Tuesday the possibilities of a peace proposal with the Colombian guerrilla groups FARC and ELN and emphasized that Colombia will not fall into the trap of "internationalizing dialogue".  It is nice to see a world leader who understands that you fight evil--you don't negotiate with it.

The article reports:

""We're not going to fall into that trap again. We only demand from the international community that they abide by the agreed international rules we respect: fighting terrorism and offering them no refuge, nowhere", insisted Uribe who next week, on August 7 will be stepping down after eight years in office and as the most popular Colombian leader in decades."

A U.S. - Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement was sent to Congress on April 7, 2007, by President Bush.  It is still not approved.  Congress refuses to admit that President Uribe has made considerable progress in fighting FARC and ELN and is unwilling to ratify that agreement which would help Columbia stand strong against the designs of those terrorists and of Hugo Chavez.  The issue that has prevented Congress from ratifying this agreement has to do with the influence of American unions on the Democrat Congress.

The article at Merco Press concludes:

"President Chavez rejects the "terrorist group" labels for FARC and ELN (imposed by the US and the EU) arguing they are part of the "Bolivarian revolution" combating regional oligarchies.

"He has been in the past and is now again strongly pushing for the "peace dialogue" between the guerrillas and the Colombian government.

"With the guerrillas on the run and virtually no public opinion support, and following some spectacular rescue-coups by Colombian special forces, there is no significant ambiance for such a peace dialogue in the country, according to the latest polls."

Until we learn to call terrorists by their proper name (terrorists) and treat them as such, we will not defeat people who kidnap and kill innocent people.  Thank you, President Uribe, for your steadfastness and your wisdom.

This story is based on two articles, one in the Washington Post on Friday, and one at Hot Air yesterday.  The article at the Washington Post points out that in early 2008 the House ethics committee began looking into the affairs of Charlie Rangel, the colorful Democratic representative from New York.  The two most serious charges have to do with unreported income and using congressional letterhead to raise funds for a private center named after him at City College of New York.  There will be a trial in September.  In preparation for that, the alleged violations are expected to be made public tomorrow.  I need to mention that this process was totally avoidable.

The Washington Post reports:

"Sources familiar with the case said that Rangel could have avoided this showdown by accepting the subcommittee's findings. He was briefed on the allegations against him -- as required by House rules -- in recent weeks, and he rejected them."

This is rather odd.  Hot Air reports:

"Rep. Charles Rangel's chances of cutting an ethics deal are in jeopardy over allegations that he met privately with Ethics Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) Monday night without any Republican members of the bipartisan panel present."

"Lofgren says she hasn't spoken to Rangel since last Thursday, and sources close to Rangel deny that there was an attempt to cut a backroom deal with Lofgren. But Rangel's attorneys met with Democratic ethics committee staff Monday, according to people close to the investigation."

This may be a case of using words carefully.  If Rangel's lawyers and Democratic aides met with Republicans present, this could jeopardize any sort of bipartisan ethics process. 

 Meanwhile, Representative Rangel is being challenged in a Democrat party primary by Adam Clayton Powell Jr's son.  Ironically, in 1970 Charlie Rangel defeated Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. in a Democrat primary.  Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was chairman of the Education and Labor Committee in 1961. As committee chairman he supported the passage of important social legislation, but was eventually removed from his seat by the Democratic members-elect of the 90th Congress following allegations of corruption.

It's sad to see people who are supposed to serve the public misusing their positions.  We need to clean house in November and elect people who understand the concept of public service.  It is discouraging to see the number of 'public servants' who use their positions to amass personal wealth.