Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Senate. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Senate. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Senate panel approves massive farm bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday approved a massive five-year farm bill that would cut spending while also creating new subsidies for farmers.

The legislation approved 15-5 includes concessions to Southern rice and peanut farmers, thanks to a new top Republican on the committee, Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran. The bill eliminates $5 billion in annual subsidies, called direct payments, that are important to those Southern farmers but makes it easier for them to receive alternate subsidies if prices dip.

The Senate bill calls for a total of roughly $2.4 billion a year in cuts, while a House version to be considered Wednesday would save $4 billion out of almost $100 billion annually. Those cuts include more than $600 million in yearly savings from across-the-board cuts that took effect earlier this year.

Much of the savings in the House and Senate bills comes from eliminating the direct payments, which are frequently criticized because they aren't tied to production or crop prices. Part of that savings would go toward deficit reduction, but the rest of the money would create new programs and raise subsidies for some crops while business is booming in the agricultural sector.

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the top Republican on the committee in the last session of Congress, criticized the higher subsidies for Southern farmers, which are essentially a lower threshold for rice and peanut subsidies to kick in. Roberts said the new policy could guarantee that those farmers profits are average or above average.

"I simply don't know how to justify a program that pays producers more than the cost of production and essentially becomes nothing more than another income transfer program, not a risk management tool," Roberts said.

Under the House bill, authored by Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., those subsidies for rice and peanut farmers could kick in even sooner. These "target price" programs allow farmers to receive subsidies if prices fall below a certain threshold. It hasn't been used much in recent years because of record crop prices, but is intended to be a safety net if prices collapse.

The bill includes generous protections for other crops as well. Both bills would boost federally subsidized crop insurance and create a new program that covers smaller losses on planted crops before crop insurance kicks in, favoring Midwestern corn and soybean farmers who use crop insurance most often.

Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns, a Republican on the panel who served as Agriculture Secretary in the George W. Bush administration, was critical of the entire bill, arguing that the bill was more generous than Nebraska farmers had asked for and that the added help for the Southern farmers could endanger the bill on the Senate floor. The Senate easily passed a farm bill last year that did not include those higher subsidies.

Johanns also said the bill has fewer cuts than advertised because the across the board cuts have already taken effect. He called many of the cuts an "illusion."

"It's no way to deal with budget problems," he said.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said all of the changes are meant to make farm programs more efficient.

"Instead of subsidies that pay out every year even in good times, the bill creates risk management tools that support farmers when they are negatively impacted by weather disaster or market events beyond their control," she said.

In order to boost savings, the Senate bill would cut $400 million out of almost $80 billion spent annually on food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The legislation would save dollars by targeting states that give people who don't have heating bills very small amounts of heating assistance so they can automatically qualify for higher food stamp benefits.

The committee rejected amendments by Johanns and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., to expand the cut, while New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, a Democrat, said she will offer amendments on the Senate floor to restore the food stamp dollars. She said the cuts are immoral.

All three of those senators voted against the final bill, along with Roberts and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who sits on the agriculture panel but did not attend the meeting.

The House bill up Wednesday would cut five times as much domestic food aid as the Senate bill in that chamber in an effort to appease conservatives in that chamber. That bill would cut $2 billion annually from the program and rewrite policy that allows some people who already receive benefits to automatically receive food stamps.

Balancing the cutbacks important to conservatives with maintaining the generous safety net that farmers have relied on for decades will be key to getting the bill passed before current farm programs expire Sept. 30.

This is the third year in a row that farm-state lawmakers have tried to push the bill through. Though it passed the Senate, the House declined to take up the bill last year after conservatives in that chamber objected to the bill's cost and insisted on higher cuts to food stamps.

In 2011, Stabenow and Lucas attempted to include the bill as part of the congressional supercommittee's effort to come up with a long-term deficit reduction plan. When that effort failed, farm bill action stalled until the next year.

House leaders have given supporters more optimism this year as they have said they plan to put the measure on the floor this summer.

Longtime critics of farm policy say that even with the belt-tightening, the legislation is still a giveaway to the largest farms which tend to receive the largest shares of the subsidies.

"It's very disappointing in a time of runaway deficits and record farm income," says Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group.

Farm groups defend the policy by using last year's drought as an example. Despite widespread losses, federally subsidized crop insurance helped farmers recover.

The bill would also limit payments to the wealthiest farmers and require farmers who receive crop insurance to comply with certain soil and water conservation requirements.

___

Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter at http://twitter.com/mcjalonick


View the original article here

Top Senate Democrat: DOJ action against AP ‘inexcusable’

May 13 (Reuters) - Leading money winners on the 2013 PGATour on Monday (U.S. unless stated): 1. Tiger Woods $5,849,600 2. Brandt Snedeker $3,388,064 3. Kevin Streelman $2,572,989 4. Billy Horschel $2,567,891 5. Matt Kuchar $2,493,387 6. Phil Mickelson $2,220,280 7. Adam Scott (Australia) $2,207,683 8. D.A. Points $2,019,702 9. Steve Stricker $1,977,140 10. Graeme McDowell $1,910,654 11. Jason Day $1,802,797 12. Webb Simpson $1,759,015 13. Dustin Johnson $1,748,907 14. Hunter Mahan $1,682,939 15. Charles Howell III $1,561,988 16. Russell Henley $1,546,638 17. Martin Laird $1,531,950 18. ...


View the original article here

Legal immigration focus of Senate panel

May 13 (Reuters) - Leading money winners on the 2013 PGATour on Monday (U.S. unless stated): 1. Tiger Woods $5,849,600 2. Brandt Snedeker $3,388,064 3. Kevin Streelman $2,572,989 4. Billy Horschel $2,567,891 5. Matt Kuchar $2,493,387 6. Phil Mickelson $2,220,280 7. Adam Scott (Australia) $2,207,683 8. D.A. Points $2,019,702 9. Steve Stricker $1,977,140 10. Graeme McDowell $1,910,654 11. Jason Day $1,802,797 12. Webb Simpson $1,759,015 13. Dustin Johnson $1,748,907 14. Hunter Mahan $1,682,939 15. Charles Howell III $1,561,988 16. Russell Henley $1,546,638 17. Martin Laird $1,531,950 18. ...


View the original article here

Glance: Senate and House farm bills

The House and Senate this week are considering legislation that would cut federal farm and food subsidies. A look at the bills:

OVERALL COST: Both five-year bills would cost about $100 billion annually, with almost $80 billion of that annual total going to domestic food aid. The Senate bill would save about $2.4 billion yearly from current spending, and the House bill would save around $3.8 billion, including about $600 million saved in each bill due to across-the-board spending cuts that kicked in earlier this year.

FOOD STAMPS: Food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, have for decades been part of the farm bill in an effort to garner urban lawmakers' votes for rural programs. The Senate farm bill would cut about $400 million from the $80 billion annual total by targeting states that give people who don't have heating bills very small amounts of heating assistance so they can automatically qualify for higher food stamp benefits. The House bill would cut $2 billion yearly by making similar changes and also eliminating what is called "broad-based categorical eligibility," or granting automatic food stamp benefits when people are signed up for certain other programs.

DIRECT PAYMENTS: Direct payments, which cost the government around $5 billion annually, would be phased out in both bills, with the savings split between other subsidy programs and deficit reduction. Those subsidies have been controversial because they are paid out every year regardless of crop prices or crop yield. The Senate bill would eliminate the program immediately while the House bill would phase it out over the next two years for cotton farmers who rely on the program.

CROP INSURANCE: Both bills would increase subsidies for federally-subsidized crop insurance and create a new crop insurance program that covers smaller revenue losses on planted crops before crop insurance kicks in. This revenue protection program favors Midwestern corn and soybean farmers and would be more generous in the Senate bill.

PRICE PROTECTION: Both bills would raise what are called "target prices" for some crops. Certain subsidies kick in if prices drop to those targets, meaning farmers will only receive them if prices are low. While many of these programs haven't been used for the last several years because crop prices have been at unprecedented highs, these subsidies exist as a safety net. Both the House and Senate bills would raise these target prices for rice and peanuts, since farmers of those crops also often depend on direct payments that would be eliminated. The House bill would raise those target prices higher than the Senate bill would, meaning it would be easier for the subsidies to kick in.

FOOD AID: Neither bill includes an Obama administration food aid proposal to shift the way food aid is sent abroad. The United States now donates much of its food aid by shipping homegrown food overseas, but the Obama budget last month proposed shifting the aid money to more flexible accounts that allow for cash purchases abroad or from U.S. farmers, saying such a move would be more efficient. Both House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., have sided with farm groups against the proposal.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 9 tháng 5, 2013

Illinois Senate OKs union-backed pension deal

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — The Illinois Senate voted Thursday to send a union-supported pension reform bill to the House, leaving lawmakers with two competing proposals for dealing with the nation's worst state pension problem just weeks before the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn.

The Senate voted 40-16 Thursday to advance a measure sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton. The Chicago Democrat negotiated the plan with some of the state's largest public-employee unions. Cullerton says it's the only pension-reform approach that is constitutional, and the unions have agreed not to file a lawsuit if the measure is signed into law as written.

But House Speaker Michael Madigan prefers a plan he that sponsored and the House approved last week and that he says could save the state three times more money than Cullerton's proposal.

Gov. Pat Quinn backs Madigan's measure, as did Senate Republicans. But rather than take up Madigan's proposal in the Senate, Democrats there opted to go with Cullerton's union-friendly plan.

Steve Brown, a spokesman for Madigan, rejected any suggestion that a battle is brewing between the two Chicago Democrats, like the showdowns that used to occur between Madigan and former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's legislative allies.

"Anybody who wants to suggest there's some kind of confrontation showdown I think doesn't know Mike Madigan and John Cullerton very well," Brown said. "They've worked cooperatively for many years. Unlike the Blagojevich years when people did showdowns - that's not going to happen here."

It remains to be seen if a deal can be struck between the two sides or if one leader will succumb to the other's approach.

Quinn, who has said fixing the state's nearly $100 billion pension crisis is his top priority, told reporters Thursday that Madigan's plan should get a vote in the Senate before the end of the month. He said the proposal contains the principles for reform that he outlined more than a year ago.

"I think it's important for them, members of the Senate, (to) take a look at everything," the Chicago Democrat said. "But ultimately it's important for (Madigan's proposal) to get a vote."

Cullerton's plan would give workers and retirees a choice in retirement benefits. Current workers would choose among three different benefit packages, while retirees would choose between two. For example, workers who want to receive 3 percent cost-of-living increases compounded annually wouldn't get health insurance. If they want health insurance in retirement, they would receive smaller cost-of-living adjustments.

Cullerton says the legislation would save Illinois about $46 billion over the next 30 years. In 2015, the state's annual pension payment would be about $850 million less in 2015 than is currently scheduled.

Madigan's bill would unilaterally cut benefits for employees in four of the five's public retirement systems. He says it would save about $150 billion over 30 years, and reduce the 2015 scheduled payment by $1.8 billion.

It would require public employees to pay 2 percent more toward their retirement benefits, reduce annual cost-of-living increases for retirees and increase the retirement age for workers under 45. Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, says the bill would fully fund the pension systems in 30 years. The plan Cullerton is backing would get the systems to be 90 percent funded in that same timeframe.

Public-employee unions have said they will file a lawsuit if Madigan's bill is enacted. They say it violates a clause in the state constitution that says pension benefits can't be reduced.

Cullerton says if Madigan's bill is thrown out by the courts, the actual savings would be zero.

Illinois has the nation's worst state pension crisis, due largely to years of lawmakers skipping or shorting their payments to the state's five retirement systems. The massive unfunded liability has put pressure on other areas of the state budget and prompted credit rating agencies to give Illinois the lowest credit rating of any state in the country. The bond houses have warned that another downgrade could occur if the General Assembly doesn't take action by the end of the legislative session, which is scheduled for May 31.

___

The Cullerton bill is SB2404. The Madigan bill is SB1.


View the original article here

Senate OKs honor for Birmingham bombing victims

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four victims of a deadly Alabama church bombing at the height of the civil rights movement are now just a presidential signature away from receiving Congress' highest civilian honor.

The Senate on Thursday approved by voice vote a measure that would posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal to Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair.

The four girls were killed when a bomb planted by white supremacists exploded at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963.

Senate approval comes after a unanimous, 420-0 vote in the House.

Led by members of the Alabama delegation, Congress has shown broad support for awarding the medal. But relatives of the four victims have been split, with some supportive and others seeking financial compensation.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 5, 2013

Top Senate Republican opposes Obama labor nominee Perez

By Rachelle Younglai and Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate's top Republican on Wednesday came out strongly against President Barack Obama's nominee for labor secretary, accusing Thomas Perez of being a crusading ideologue who would bend the laws to advance his agenda.

Perez's nomination must be confirmed by the Senate and the speech from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suggests that Republicans will throw up procedural hurdles to prevent him from serving as the Obama administration's next labor secretary.

"Unbound by the rules that apply to everyone else, Mr. Perez seems to view himself as free to employ whatever means at his disposal, legal or otherwise, to achieve his ideological goals," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

Perez, 51, is currently head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and has worked on civil rights issues in a series of government positions during his career.

McConnell's speech was designed to rally his members to oppose the nomination, and it provides cover for other Republicans who may be thinking about opposing Obama's pick, said George Washington University's Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress.

"I think it matters that it is Mitch McConnell here, laying the marker down on why he's opposing the nominee," Binder said.

The Oversight Committee in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives also has issues with Perez and has subpoenaed private emails he used to conduct government business.

Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings joined Republicans on Wednesday in asking Perez to turn over the documents. A spokeswoman for Cummings was not immediately available to explain the lawmaker's reasons.

LATINO SUCCESS STORY

Obama has described Perez's career as exemplifying the American success story. Perez, the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, helped pay for college by working as a garbage collector and in a warehouse.

The nomination was championed by Hispanic groups, which have pushed for more representation in the Cabinet.

As labor secretary, he would have a key role in Obama's efforts to raise the minimum wage and overhaul immigration laws.

Republicans allege that Perez entered into a quid pro quo deal with St. Paul, Minnesota, in which he got the city to withdraw a Supreme Court appeal in exchange for the department not filing charges alleging St. Paul had filed false claims in a government funding application.

Perez denies the allegation.

On Wednesday, Republican Senator Marco Rubio - a Hispanic often touted as a potential presidential candidate in 2016 - also said he thought Perez would be a "disastrous" choice.

"Many Americans, especially those of us of Hispanic descent, celebrate his success and his personal story," Rubio said in a statement. "Unfortunately, intellect and work ethic are not sufficient qualifications for a cabinet secretary."

SECOND DELAY FOR VOTE

The Senate Health and Labor Committee had been scheduled to vote on Perez's nomination on Wednesday. But Republicans invoked an obscure rule that prevents committees from meeting when the Senate is in session.

The committee is expected to hold the vote on May 16, marking the second time the panel has had to reschedule the vote due to Republican maneuvers. Although Obama's Democrats control the Senate 55-45, they would need 60 votes to clear a procedural roadblock.

The Health and Labor Committee chairman, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, said he has given Republicans ample time to vet Perez and said his colleagues were now delaying the vote for "delay's sake."

The White House accused Republicans of "politicizing" the nomination but brushed off concerns Perez would be blocked.

"He's enormously qualified and there has not been a case made that is not political and partisan against his nomination, and we hope and expect the Senate will move forward," spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

Two of Obama's other Cabinet picks, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan, had tough confirmations but eventually succeeded.

Obama has had a difficult time getting Senate approval for his Cabinet choices compared to his predecessors, Binder said. Previous presidents have rarely had to meet a 60-vote threshold to secure a confirmation, whereas Republicans have made that "the new norm" for Obama.

"There's no doubt that many nominations are killed by being drawn out and wearing down the nominee," Binder said, explaining that the longer the delay until a vote, the more time opposition can "fester and grow."

(Reporting by Rachelle Younglai and Roberta Rampton; Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Cynthia Osterman, Eric Walsh and Eric Beech)


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 5, 2013

Shopping Center Industry Applauds The Passage Of Marketplace Fairness Act In The Senate

The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 Passes the U.S. Senate in a 69-27 Vote

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) today applauded the United States Senate for the passage of The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 in a 69-27 vote. The bipartisan legislation gives states the authority to choose to require online sellers to collect sales taxes just like brick-and-mortar retailers already do. The bill, which provides a common-sense solution to a decades-old problem that has created a distorted marketplace, is designed to promote fairness and compliance, without burdening free enterprise.

"The shopping center industry would like to thank Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) for their resolute dedication to moving this critical piece of legislation through the Senate," said Michael P. Kercheval, president and CEO of ICSC. "The Marketplace Fairness Act creates a fair marketplace that protects retailers, restores the states' ability to manage their own fiscal policies and strengthens the United States' free enterprise system."

Sixty-nine Senators from both parties voted in favor of S. 743, demonstrating the tremendous momentum for creating a fair, competitive marketplace. The bipartisan passage of the Marketplace Fairness Act sends a strong message to the House of Representatives, where a companion bill, H.R. 684, was introduced in February.

"For the past two decades, the retail environment has dramatically changed. To keep pace with those changes, our laws must evolve," said Betsy Laird, senior vice president of global public policy of ICSC. "The Senate acknowledged this through the passage of this legislation and we now look to the House to continue the momentum and bring H.R. 684 to a vote."

ICSC has promoted sales tax fairness for over a decade, advocating that a "sale is a sale" regardless of whether the purchase takes place on Main Street, at shopping centers, over the Internet or with a smart phone. For more information about sales tax fairness and how the current sales tax system is unable to support the 21st century retail marketplace please visit www.21stcenturyretail.org.

About ICSC
Founded in 1957, ICSC is the premier global trade association of the shopping center industry. Its more than 58,000 members in over 90 countries include shopping center owners, retailers, developers, managers, marketing specialists, investors, and brokers as well as academics and public officials. As the global industry trade association, ICSC links with more than 25 national and regional shopping center councils throughout the world. For more information, visit www.icsc.org.

SOURCE International Council of Shopping Centers


View the original article here

Senate passes bill letting states tax online sales

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate aimed to help traditional retailers and financially strapped state and local governments Monday by passing a bill that would widely subject online shopping — for many a largely tax-free frontier — to state sales taxes.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike. But opposition from some conservatives who view it as a tax increase will make it a tougher sell in the House. President Barack Obama has conveyed his support for the measure.

Under current law, states can only require retailers to collect sales taxes if the store has a physical presence in the state.

That means big retailers with stores all over the country like Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Target collect sales taxes when they sell goods over the Internet. But online retailers like eBay and Amazon don't have to collect sales taxes, except in states where they have offices or distribution centers.

As a result, many online sales are tax-free, giving Internet retailers an advantage over brick-and-mortar stores.

"We ought to have a structure in place in the states that treats all retail the same," said Matthew Shay, president and CEO of the National Retail Federation. "Small retailers are collecting (sales tax) on the first dollar of any sale they make, and it's only fair that other retailers who are selling to those same customers the same product have those same obligations."

The bill would empower states to require businesses to collect taxes for products they sell on the Internet, in catalogs and through radio and TV ads. Under the legislation, the sales taxes would be sent to the state where the shopper lives.

Supporters say the current tax disparity is turning some traditional stores into showrooms, where shoppers pick out items they like, then buy them on the Internet to avoid sales taxes.

"It's about the way commerce has changed in America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "Bookstores, stores that sell running shoes, bicycles and appliances are at a distinct disadvantage. They've become showrooms."

Internet giant eBay is leading the fight against the bill, along with lawmakers from states with no sales tax and several prominent anti-tax groups. The bill's opponents say it would put an expensive obligation on small businesses because they are not as equipped as national merchandisers to collect and remit sales taxes at the multitude of state rates.

"Giant retailers have a requirement to collect sales taxes nationwide because they have physical presence nationwide," eBay president John Donahoe wrote in an online column over the weekend. "Likewise, today small retail stores and online retailers collect sales taxes for the one state where they are located. That's a fair requirement."

"If the bill passes, small online businesses would have the same tax compliance obligations and face the same enforcement risks as giant retailers, despite the fact that they are usually located in just one state."

Businesses with less than $1 million in online sales would be exempt. EBay wants to exempt businesses with up to $10 million in sales or fewer than 50 employees.

Some states have sales taxes as high as 7 percent, plus city and county taxes that can push the combined rate even higher. For example, the combined state and local sales tax is 9 percent in Los Angeles and 9.25 percent in Chicago. In New York City, it's 8.5 percent and in Richmond, Va., 5 percent. In many states, shoppers are already required to pay unpaid sales tax when they file their state income tax returns. However, states complain that few taxpayers comply.

Many governors — Republicans and Democrats — have been lobbying the federal government for years for the authority to collect sales taxes from online sales.

The issue is getting bigger for states as more people make purchases online. Last year, Internet sales in the U.S. totaled $226 billion, up nearly 16 percent from the previous year, according to government estimates.

States lost a total of $23 billion last year because they couldn't collect taxes on out-of-state sales, according to a study done for the National Conference of State Legislatures, which has lobbied for the bill. About half of that was lost from Internet sales; half from purchases made through catalogs, mail orders and telephone orders, the study said.

Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities.

Opponents worry the bill would give states too much power to reach across state lines to enforce their tax laws. States could audit out-of-state businesses, impose liens on their property and, ultimately, sue them in state court.

In the Senate, lawmakers from three states without sales taxes are leading the opposition: Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon. They argue that businesses based in their states should not have to collect taxes for other states.

Delaware also has sales tax, though Delaware's two senators support the bill.

Grover Norquist, an anti-tax advocate, and the conservative Heritage Foundation oppose the bill, and many Republicans have been wary of crossing them.

Even so, the issue has a bipartisan flavor. The main sponsor, Sen. Mike Enzi, is a conservative Republican from Wyoming. He has worked closely with Durbin, a liberal Democrat.

In the House, Republican Speaker John Boehner has not commented publicly about the bill, giving supporters hope that he could be won over.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over the bill, has cited problems with the legislation but not rejected it outright.

"While it attempts to make tax collection simpler, it still has a long way to go," Goodlatte said in a statement. Without more uniformity in the bill, he said, "businesses would still be forced to wade through potentially hundreds of tax rates and a host of different tax codes and definitions."

Goodlatte said he's "open to considering legislation concerning this topic but these issues, along with others, would certainly have to be addressed."

___

Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 5 tháng 5, 2013

AARP Applauds Governor's Veto of Senate Bill 9; Urges General Assembly to Uphold

CHICAGO, May 5, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- AARP commends Governor Pat Quinn for his veto of Senate Bill 9 and urges the General Assembly to uphold it.

"AARP applauds Governor Quinn's decision to veto this premature and bad public policy that has nothing to do with infrastructure development or service improvement and everything to do with higher profits for the utility companies," said AARP Illinois State Director Bob Gallo. "AARP is adamantly opposed to the Illinois legislature's attempts to tip the legislative and regulatory balance in favor of the utility companies, allowing them to continue to dig deeper into consumers' pockets, and we are inviting our members and all Illinois consumers to join us in fighting against these unfair and unwarranted rate hikes."

SB 9 is follow up to the controversial 2011 legislation (SB1652) passed by the Illinois General Assembly writing utility company profits into state law by guaranteeing companies a return on equity of over 10 percent, and nearly automatic annual rate increases.

SB 9 further tilts the balance in favor of Illinois utility companies by allowing them to circumvent Illinois' regulatory process and avoid paying back a multi-million dollar rate cut ordered by the Illinois Commerce Commission last year. The language in SB 9 allows ComEd and Ameren to not only avoid paying refunds to consumers; it allows them to instead receive a retroactive rate hike with interest.

Illinois General Assembly passage of SB9 was premature since the utility's objections to the ICC rate cut decision are currently under consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court. SB9 also further ties the hands of the ICC by deeming ComEd and Ameren to be in compliance with their promised performance metrics, despite ComEd's delayed implementation of smart meters.

According to a 2012 AARP survey of Illinois members, 64 percent of the Association's 1.7 million members are concerned about affording their utilities. In addition to the potential electric rate hikes facing consumers with SB9, a number of other bills that could raise consumers' rates for natural gas, water and telephone service are also pending in Illinois General Assembly this session.

AARP has started traveling across Illinois to help inform citizens about these bills, their rights as consumers and help them fight back by contacting their legislators and urging them to stand up for their constituents. AARP will be hosting Say No to Rate Hikes town hall forums in Decatur on May 7, in Peoria on May 11, in Chicago on May 13 and 14, and will host events Springfield and Edwardsville on May 15 and 17, respectively.

Consumers can take action right now by calling, toll-free, 1-800-719-3020 to be connected to their legislators, or going online to http://saynotoratehikes.com, to send them a message and urge them to vote no on these bills. Illinoisans can register to attend events in Decatur, Peoria and Chicago online at AARP.cvent.com/saynotoratehikes or use the Twitter hashtag #affordableutilitiesnow to tweet if their rates are too high.

Become a fan of AARP Illinois on Facebook - www.facebook.com/aarpillinois 
Follow us on Twitter - www.twitter.com/aarpillinois

SOURCE AARP Illinois


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 3 tháng 5, 2013

Can Republicans win John Kerry's Senate seat?

If Gabriel Gomez upsets Democrat Ed Markey, he'll be the first Republican to do so since, well, Scott Brown

Rep. Ed Markey (D) and businessman Gabriel Gomez (R) handily won their respective primaries in Massachusetts on Tuesday. But as the veteran Democratic lawmaker and Navy SEAL veteran prepare for a two-month dash to the June 25 special election to fill Secretary of State John Kerry's Senate seat, a third name is hanging over the race like a beacon of hope (for Gomez) or warning signal (for Markey).

Will Gomez "be the next Scott Brown?" ask Martin Finucane and Michael Levenson in The Boston Globe — a question being posed by just about every political handicapper and operative in the country. Brown, a little-known GOP state lawmaker, won a 2010 special election for U.S. Senate in an upset over Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D). Republicans hope Gomez, a political neophyte with an attractive face and personal story, is able to capture the same coalition of Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats who pushed Brown to victory.

SEE MORE: Chickpeas: America's new cash crop?

Markey starts out the favorite in a state where Democrats hold a strong voter-registration edge and the national Republican Party is pretty unpopular. But "Democrats have good reason to be worried," says Shoshana Weissmann at PolicyMic. About half of Massachusetts' registered voters are independents, and "Gomez has substantial appeal that transcends party." His parents are Colombian immigrants, so Gomez didn't learn English until kindergarten, and his résumé — Navy pilot and SEAL officer, Harvard MBA, millionaire private-equity investor — and socially moderate positions make him the kind of Republican "who can be elected with ease in a blue state." Just ask Scott Brown.

Brown, of course, lost his bid to serve a full term last November. And as political forecaster Larry Sabato notes:

Dozens tell me Gomez is next Scott Brown. By my count since '10, this makes Gomez 35th next Scott Brown.

SEE MORE: BlackBerry CEO: Tablets are doomed

— Larry Sabato (@LarrySabato) May 1, 2013

Democrats would have been better off choosing Markey's more conservative rival, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), says Aaron Goldstein at The American Spectator. And Gomez's enviable attributes — "handsome, youthful, Hispanic, and bilingual," plus private-sector success — make him "a viable candidate." Still, Gomez has very long odds:

The chances of Gomez becoming the second coming of Scott Brown are slim. The fact that Brown is thinking of running for office in New Hampshire tells you that even he doesn't think there's going to be a second coming for him in the Bay State. Also Markey is no Martha Coakley. Unless Markey says or does something absolutely stupid, he will most likely become Massachusetts' next senator. [American Spectator]

Political "inexpertise can become a political boon, especially on the Republican side," says Charlie Pierce at Esquire. But "Gomez isn't quite the political naif that he's selling to the Commonwealth." In the 2012 election, he cut an ad for "the group of SEALS who accused the president of using the raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed for crass political purposes." And he wrote a letter asking Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Mass.) to appoint him to the vacant Senate seat when Kerry resigned. "Guess what, Gabriel? You're a politician."

SEE MORE: Yes, money can buy you happiness

With Markey's 36 years in the House, though, this will fundamentally be "a classic outsider versus career politician race," The Cook Report's Jennifer Duffy tells Go Local Worcester. Gomez will work hard to convince voters that he's an independent voice, not a conservative Republican, and that Markey is a "creature of a dysfunctional Congress." Markey will tout his accomplishments and argue that Gomez is "an ideological chameleon, and thus cannot be trusted." All things considered, Gomez is the underdog, and "I don't intend to change the rating from where it is now — Solid Democrat.

In hindsight, "Scott Brown's win was like lightning in a bottle," a mixture of a backlash against Democrats and ObamaCare plus damaging gaffes by the Democrat, Coakley, says Jessica Taylor at MSNBC. But it's not all bad news for Republicans.

SEE MORE: WATCH: The first clip from the new Arrested Development

If nothing else, showcasing Gomez gives them a top candidate with a profile they badly need to replicate across the country — a young, Hispanic moderate.... Even if Gomez... ultimately does fall short, if he runs an impressive campaign, expect his name to pop up for other offices in the Bay State — maybe even a 2014 rematch with Markey, when the seat is regularly scheduled to be up. For Republicans, boosting Gomez may be a win-win even if it's not a win at the ballot box on June 25. [MSNBC]

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 28 tháng 4, 2013

Bombing shifts Mass. Senate race before primaries

BOSTON (AP) — Even before the explosions, polling suggested that Massachusetts voters weren't excited about the looming special election to replace former U.S. Sen. John Kerry.

But in the days after bombs ripped through the Boston Marathon's crowded streets, politics were all but forgotten as authorities launched an unprecedented manhunt and a region grappled with terror. It didn't matter that competitive primary contests on both sides were 15 days away; everything was put on hold.

"There are things that are more important than campaigning and that horrific event was clearly one of them," said U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, who is competing against U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch for the Democratic nomination to replace Kerry, now the secretary of state.

After suspending political activities for roughly a week, the candidates have been forced to walk a delicate balance as they engage voters ahead of Tuesday's Republican and Democratic primaries. They have largely avoided the site of the attack out of sensitivity for victims, but some have tweaked campaign advertising to address the bombing, highlighted their national security credentials and tried to use the sudden focus on terrorism to shift the direction of the race.

"It completely changed the landscape," Lynch aide Scott Ferson said of the bombing.

Indeed, a campaign once dominated by debates about the environment, health care and women's rights has become more focused on enemy combatants, Miranda rights and counterterrorism agencies. Some candidates welcomed the shift.

On the Democratic side, Lynch has seized on national security in recent days to attack Markey, thought to be the frontrunner. One of the most memorable moments in last week's Democratic debate, just a week after the bombing, focused on support for federal security efforts

"Unlike my colleague Mr. Markey, I've actually voted for the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bills," Lynch charged.

Markey responded: "He's taking a page right out of the Karl Rove swift boat playbook, and it's very sad, especially just one week after what just happened in Boston, Cambridge and Watertown."

Through Tuesday's primary election, Markey outspent Lynch on television advertising $1.7 million to $1.2 million, according to advertising figures obtained by The Associated Press. But only Lynch focused on the bombings in a television ad that blanketed the state last week, while Markey focused on traditional Democratic priorities such as women's reproductive rights.

"We hold in our hearts those we lost, but we will get through this together and work toward a brighter day," Lynch says in the campaign ad.

But Lynch was forced to distance himself last week from a so-called robo-call made on his behalf by the leader of ironworkers' union who mentions the bombings while encouraging voters to support someone who "understands the day-to-day problems facing working families." It was an awkward moment for the Lynch campaign, which called on the group to stop the calls.

But it's unclear how many people were paying attention.

"The bombings basically sucked all the air out of the room," said Steve Koczela, president of MassINC Polling Group, which found last month that more than 40 percent of likely Democratic voters and nearly 50 percent of likely Republican voters hadn't settled on a candidate.

"It just doesn't seem like — even as of the last poll — people were really paying attention to who was running," Koczela continued. "There's room for any of the candidates to make a move."

On the Republican side in particular, the recent violence shifted the contours of the contest.

GOP candidate Gabriel Gomez, a former Navy SEAL, finished running the marathon minutes before the bombs exploded along the finish line, killing three and injuring more than 200.

Like other candidates, Gomez immediately pulled television ads off the air and suspended campaign activities. He said he was focused on being respectful as he eased back into campaigning the following weekend.

"We can't let the terrorists win and completely suspend what is fundamental right in the United States," Gomez said.

He charged that President Barack Obama's administration should have designated 19-year-old suspect Dzhohkar Tsarnaev an "enemy combatant" and tried him outside the traditional criminal justice system.

Another GOP candidate, Mike Sullivan, says the federal government should have denied Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, tried him as an enemy combatant and revoked his U.S. citizenship.

"Our first concern must always be preventing future terrorist acts against our people," said Sullivan, a former U.S. attorney whose campaign has been reminding people that he previously led the prosecution of shoe bomber Richard Reid.

Republican candidate Dan Winslow, a former judge and chief legal counsel under former Gov. Mitt Romney, said the entire GOP field has experience with national security.

"We've got a Navy SEAL, a former prosecutor and a former judge all in the field for Republicans," Winslow said. "I think we all have our own credentials. The key is, Who's got the better ideas? Who's got the better electability in June?"

The key may also be which candidate can convince his supporters to get to the polls as the bombing continues to dominate attention in Massachusetts. State officials were already predicting a low turnout, likely less than 20 percent of eligible voters, even before the attack.

Wendy Becker, 45, of Newton, was among the thousands who visited the bomb site in Copley Square late last week. A registered voter, she said she didn't know the primaries were happening so soon.

"I didn't even know it was Tuesday and haven't cared," she said, noting that her little brother and brother-in-law ran in the marathon. She's been glued to the television coverage of the aftermath even since.

"I don't really know much about the candidates," she said while standing on the freshly poured cement on Boylston Street, where one of the bombs exploded. "I think this just took over the whole voting thing."

The general election, featuring the primary winners, is scheduled for June 25.

___

Associated Press writer Steve LeBlanc in Boston contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 26 tháng 4, 2013

Retailers Celebrate Senate Marketplace Fairness Act Vote

Bipartisan Majority Overwhelmingly Supports Level Playing Field for Main St. Retailers

ARLINGTON, Va., April 25, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) issued the following statement in response to a vote in the United States Senate related to the Marketplace Fairness Act, legislation aimed at giving states the power – if they so choose - to better enforce their sales tax laws and to level the playing field for Main Street merchants.  

The Senate voted to invoke cloture on the managers' amendment to the bill, which is sponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). The vote foreshadows final passage of the Marketplace Fairness Act.

"Today's vote in the Senate is proof that the special treatment of big online businesses at the expense of retailers on Main Street will soon be a thing of the past," said Bill Hughes, senior vice president for government affairs. "The overwhelmingly bipartisan support for leveling the playing field is rare in today's political environment and paves the way for a level playing field once and for all."

"For too long the Main Street retailers that are an integral part of their communities have faced tax rules that put them at a disadvantage to their out of state, online-only competitors. The Marketplace Fairness Act would simply provide states with the power, if they choose to use it, to ensure that the market, not government, determines winners and losers," said Hughes. "We applaud the Senate for its support, thank the sponsors for their steadfast commitment to fairness, and look forward to final passage and working with the House to level the playing field for all merchants this year."

The Marketplace Fairness Act was outlined in RILA's 2013 public policy agenda as one of the top priorities for the industry: Retail Industry Leaders Association 2013 Public Policy Agenda: Empowering Retailers and Consumers to Grow the Economy.

Identical legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced by Representatives Steve Womack (R-AR) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) has generated strong bipartisan support.

RILA is the trade association of the world's largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA members include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales, millions of American jobs and more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities and distribution centers domestically and abroad.

SOURCE Retail Industry Leaders Association


View the original article here

Senate passes bill to ease FAA furloughs

WASHINGTON (AP) — With flight delays mounting, the Senate approved hurry-up legislation Thursday night to end air traffic controller furloughs blamed for inconveniencing large numbers of travelers.

A House vote on the measure was expected as early as Friday, with lawmakers eager to embark on a weeklong vacation.

Under the legislation, the Federal Aviation Administration would gain authority to transfer up to $253 million from accounts that are flush into other programs, to "prevent reduced operations and staffing" through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.

In addition to restoring full staffing by controllers, Senate officials said the available funds should be ample enough to prevent the closure of small airport towers around the country. The FAA has said it will shut the facilities as it makes its share of $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts that took effect last month at numerous government agencies.

The Senate acted as the FAA said there had been at least 863 flights delayed on Wednesday "attributable to staffing reductions resulting from the furlough."

There was no immediate reaction at the White House, although administration officials participated in the negotiations that led to the deal and evidently registered no objections.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a key participant in the talks, said the legislation would "prevent what otherwise would have been intolerable delays in the air travel system, inconveniencing travelers and hurting the economy."

Senate approval followed several hours of pressure-filled, closed-door negotiations, and came after most senators had departed the Capitol on the assumption that the talks had fallen short.

Officials said a small group of senators insisted on a last-ditch effort at an agreement before Congress adjourned for a vacation that could have become politically problematic if the flight delays continued.

"I want to do it right now. There are other senators you'd have to ask what the hang-up is," Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said at a point when it appeared no compromise would emerge.

For the White House and Senate Democrats, the discussions on legislation relating to one relatively small slice of the $85 billion in spending cuts marked a shift in position in a long-running struggle with Republicans over budget issues. Similarly, the turn of events marked at least modest vindication of a decision by the House GOP last winter to finesse some budget struggles in order to focus public attention on the across-the-board cuts in hopes they would gain leverage over President Barack Obama.

The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, a union that represents FAA employees, reported a number of incidents it said were due to the furloughs.

In one case, it said several flights headed for Long Island MacArthur Airport in New York were diverted on Wednesday when a piece of equipment failed. "While the policy for this equipment is immediate restoral, due to sequestration and furloughs it was changed to next-day restoral," the union said.

It added it was "learning of additional impacts nationwide, including open watches, increased restoration times, delays resulting from insufficient funding for parts and equipment, modernization delays, missed or deferred preventative maintenance, and reduced redundancy."

The airlines, too, were pressing Congress to restore the FAA to full staffing.

In an interview Wednesday, Robert Isom, chief operations officer of US Airways, likened the furloughs to a "wildcat regulatory action."

He added, "In the airline business, you try to eliminate uncertainty. Some factors you can't control, like weather. It (the FAA issue) is worse than the weather."

In a shift, first the White House and then senior Democratic lawmakers have signaled a willingness in the past two days to support legislation that alleviates the budget crunch at the FAA, while leaving the balance of the $85 billion to remain in effect.

Obama favors a comprehensive agreement that replaces the entire $85 billion in across-the-board cuts as part of a broader deficit-reduction deal that includes higher taxes and spending cuts.

One Senate Democrat, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, noted that without the type of comprehensive deficit deal that Obama favors, a bill that eases the spending crunch at the FAA would inevitably be followed by other single-issue measures. She listed funding at the National Institutes of Health as one example, and cuts that cause furloughs of civilians who work at military hospitals as a second.

At the same time, Democratic aides said resolve had crumbled under the weight of widespread delays for the traveling public and pressure from the airlines.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., involved in the discussions, said the issue was big enough so "most people want to find a solution as long as it doesn't spend any more money."

Officials estimate it would cost slightly more than $200 million to restore air traffic controllers to full staffing, and another $50 million to keep open smaller air traffic towers around the country that the FAA has proposed closing.

Across the Capitol, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said, "We're willing to look at what the Senate's going to propose."

He said he believes the FAA has the authority it needs under existing law to shift funds and end the furloughs of air traffic controllers, and any legislation should be "very, very limited" and direct the agency to use the flexibility it already has.

In a reflection of the political undercurrents, another House Republican, Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma, said FAA employees "are being used as pawns by this (Obama) administration to be able to implement the maximum amount of pain on the American people when it does not have to be this way."

The White House and congressional Democrats vociferously dispute such claims.

___

Associated Press writers Joan Lowy, Henry C. Jackson and Alan Fram in Washington and David Koenig in Dallas contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 25 tháng 4, 2013

Senate foe of Obama's gun-control bid may face voter backlash

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire faces a possible voter backlash along with critical ads from gun control advocates following her vote against President Barack Obama's bid to curb gun violence.

According to a survey by Public Policy Polling released Wednesday, Ayotte's approval rating stands at 44 percent, down 15 points since October when the organization last conducted a poll on her. The poll of 933 New Hampshire voters, from April 19 to April 21, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.

Fifty percent of those polled said Ayotte's vote against background checks legislation would make them less likely to support her for re-election. Seventy-five percent said they supported background checks.

The survey did not make clear how much, if any, of the decline in her approval rating over six months was attributable to her April 17 vote that helped defeat the bill expanding background checks for gun purchasers.

Still, gun control proponents seized on the poll as a sign of the dangers awaiting members of Congress who vote with the gun lobby against popular legislation like the defeated bill.

"I think we are at a turning point," Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York said on Thursday at a breakfast roundtable with reporters hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.

"Lots of senators who thought it was safe to vote against it (gun control) ... aren't so sure anymore," Schumer said.

A gun-control group founded by former Democratic Congresswoman Gabby Giffords of Arizona, who was wounded in a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona, began airing radio ads this week in New Hampshire criticizing Ayotte.

The group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, is also sponsoring ads aimed at Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky for helping defeat the bipartisan measure to expand background checks, which failed to advance in the U.S. Senate by a six vote margin.

"As Gabby said last week, if we can't keep our communities safe with the Congress we have, we will work to change Congress," said Pia Carusone, executive director of Giffords' group.

Ayotte, elected to the Senate with 60 percent of the vote in 2010, is not up for re-election until 2016.

McConnell faces re-election next year, and a Republican aide brushed off the ads against him.

"It is tough to be too pro-gun in Kentucky," the aide said.

Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling, said, "New Hampshire is a good bellwether for fallout from the gun vote."

"There's serious backlash from voters toward Kelly Ayotte for how she handled this issue," he said.

EDITORIAL CRITICISM

Ayotte has also drawn editorial criticism in New Hampshire from the Portsmouth Herald, which ripped into the senator with an editorial on Sunday headlined, "If you want gun control, vote Ayotte out of office."

It is unclear what, if any, lasting political damage she has suffered.

Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said, "I suspect this will be old news by 2016."

Ayotte's office declined a request for an interview with the senator, but noted she offered alternative legislation last week, including measures designed to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Ayotte, one of the few remaining Republican U.S. lawmakers from New England, was the only senator from the region to vote against the bipartisan measure.

Senior Senate Democratic aides said it had been assumed by many in the party that Ayotte might vote for the proposal, but that they had received no assurances from her.

One aide said they expected her to possibly vote yes because veteran Senator John McCain of Arizona has been seen as a mentor of Ayotte, who is in her first term. McCain was among a handful of Senate Republicans who voted for the measure.

(Reporting By Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Fred Barbash and Mohammad Zargham)


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013

Senate chairman calls for 'Do Not Track' bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — Warning consumers that industry has failed to protect their privacy online, a top Senate Democrat said Wednesday that he will press legislation this year that would create a universal "Do Not Track" option for consumers and penalize companies that fail to honor it.

"The American people are smart," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. "They are going to figure this out. And as they figure this out, they better like what they see if the Internet is going to prosper."

Rockefeller's proposal could face an uphill battle in a divided Senate already consumed with immigration and the budget. But his comments put renewed pressure on an industry struggling desperately to escape regulation.

The online privacy debate has mostly stumped Congress and prompted a tempered reaction from the Obama administration, mindful of consumers' concerns but reluctant to crush a growing industry in a difficult economy. Last year, the White House unveiled a "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" calling on industry to give consumers more control over their personal information and suggesting Congress pass legislation to enforce it.

But while everyone agrees that people should be given a choice to opt out of data collection and online tracking, advertising businesses and privacy groups remain at odds over how to implement it. Much of the debate focuses on whether consumers should have to click an opt-out button, or if their browser should automatically do it for them.

Rockefeller said Wednesday that voluntary efforts by industry have fallen short because some online advertisers ignore consumer requests not to be tracked. His bill would subject businesses to penalties by the Federal Trade Commission if they do.

"I do not believe that companies with business models based on the collection and monetization of personal information will voluntarily stop those practices if it negatively impacts their profit margins," Rockefeller said.

Industry is pushing back. The Digital Advertising Alliance points to its Web-based icon program that links consumers to an opt-out site of participating advertisers. They say some 20 million people have visited their site and only 1 million of those consumers chose to opt out of all ad tracking. Testifying at the hearing, Mastria said he thinks the industry has "delivered basically in principle" what Rockefeller proposes through legislation.

"Consumers are very pragmatic people," Lou Mastria, managing director of the Digital Advertising Alliance, said in an interview this week. "They want free content. They understand there's a value exchange. And they're OK with it."

The Do Not Track proposal is part of a broader debate about online privacy that includes what sensitive data might be collected from a person's mobile device. Because a smartphone can divulge a person's location, the FTC warned in a recent report that detailed profiles of a person's movements can be collected over time and in surprising ways, revealing a person's habits and patterns and making them vulnerable to stalking or identity theft.

Some researchers also say they suspect retailers are engaging in "price discrimination" — the practice of setting a price based on personal data, such as the average home price in their area or a person's proximity to a competitor.

Another concern is that companies might determine a person's eligibility for certain products and services based on information collected online, potentially violating credit reporting and fair lending laws.

"I think there should be obligations for companies to tell you what information they have about you" and give you the opportunity to correct it, said Justin Brookman of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, told the Senate panel that he thinks many of the privacy concerns cited with data collection are worst-case scenarios that probably won't happen. In the end, he said, data collection is merely "creepy" and might not warrant legislation.

"I think a lot of my neighbors are creepy, but I don't think they're harmful," Thierer said.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 4, 2013

In blow to Obama, Senate blocks gun-control plan

By John Whitesides and David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's campaign to curb gun violence after the Newtown school massacre was dealt a crippling blow on Wednesday when the Senate rejected a plan to expand background checks for gun buyers.

Despite emotional pleas from families of victims of the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, and broad public support, the plan to extend background checks for sales made online and at gun shows failed on a 54-46 vote, six short of the 60 votes it needed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate.

It was a stark reminder of the gun culture's hold on America - or at least its politics - and a display of how each party has used Senate rules to effectively block legislation even when it has the support of the majority.

At the White House, a visibly angry Obama said he sympathized with Americans who were trying to make sense of it all.

"This was a pretty shameful day for Washington," said Obama, flanked by Newtown families and former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was severely wounded in a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona.

"I see this as just Round One," Obama said. "Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it."

The plan by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania to expand background checks represented Obama's best hope to pass meaningful gun-control legislation after the killings of 20 children and six adults at Newtown's Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Other measures backed by the president - including a proposal to ban rapid-firing "assault" weapons like the one used in Connecticut and a limit on ammunition clips - also failed in a series of Senate votes that reflected senators' reluctance to be seen as undermining the constitutional right to bear arms.

The votes also showed the enduring political power of gun-rights defenders and the National Rifle Association, the nation's largest gun lobby.

"Our hearts are broken. Our spirit is not," Mark Barden, whose son was killed in Newtown, said at the White House after the vote as Obama looked on.

Barden vowed that his group of Sandy Hook victims' family members would continue to seek "common-sense solutions" to gun violence.

'SHOW SOME GUTS'

The votes in the Democratic-led Senate on Wednesday were the culmination of weeks of intense negotiations and lobbying over the proposed gun restrictions, and signaled the likely demise of the biggest package of gun legislation in Congress in two decades.

The political momentum for new gun-control laws had dissipated after December's shooting. Opponents criticized the proposals as government overreach that would infringe on citizens' gun rights under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. The NRA mounted an aggressive lobbying effort that Obama said amounted to a series of "lies" and "scare tactics" about the potential impact of gun legislation.

"Expanded background checks would not have prevented Newtown," Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said on Wednesday in opposing the Manchin-Toomey plan.

Obama said senators were too worried that a "vocal minority" of gun owners would make them pay in the next election for their vote to support the gun-control amendments.

When the vote totals on the background checks plan were announced by Vice President Joe Biden, who presided over the Senate tallies, a spectator in the chamber's gallery shouted, "Shame on you!"

Minutes later, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein implored her colleagues to "show some guts" and support gun legislation aimed at reducing violence.

Feinstein's proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons drew support from just 40 members of the Senate, where Democrats control 55 of the 100 seats. The proposal to limit the size of ammunition magazines drew only 46 votes. All of the Senate amendments required a 60-vote threshold to clear procedural hurdles.

Several Senate Democrats are from states where hunting and gun ownership are a part of the culture, and any vote against gun rights increases the risk of facing a tough re-election fight against a well-funded Republican who will not compromise on gun rights.

'EVERY MEANS POSSIBLE'

Four Democrats who will face re-election in conservative, gun-friendly states opposed the Manchin-Toomey background checks amendment - Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid supported the measure, but changed his vote after it was apparent it would lose in order to preserve his option to bring the measure back up in the Senate.

Four Republicans backed it: Toomey, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

Supporters promised political payback for foes of the amendment. Giffords said in a joint statement with husband Mark Kelly that the Senate "ignored the will of the American people."

"We will use every means possible to make sure the constituents of these senators know that their elected representatives ignored them, and put Washington D.C. special interest politics over the effort to keep their own communities safer from the tragedy of gun violence," they said.

The Manchin-Toomey background checks amendment allowed exemptions for private sales or gifts between families and friends and prohibited the creation of a national registry of guns. Polls show more than 80 percent of Americans support expanded background checks.

But the NRA had warned members the proposal would require checks for sales and gifts between family and friends and lead to a national registry.

The NRA's assertions are "a lie. That is simply a lie, and anybody who can read knows that is not factual," Manchin, a strong gun-rights defender, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

Reid, a Nevada gun owner and gun-rights defender, questioned why his colleagues would reject a proposal backed by nearly 90 percent of Americans.

"We must strike a better balance between the right to defend ourselves and the right of every child in America to grow up safe from gun violence," Reid said.

Reid did not say after the vote whether the Senate would pursue any additional measures related to gun violence. An underlying bill on the Senate floor would tighten restrictions on gun trafficking and bolster school security, but that would probably also have a hard time gaining 60 votes.

The Senate also rejected several Republican-sponsored amendments backed by the NRA that would have expanded gun rights.

But the influence of the gun culture and the gun lobby was clear when an NRA-backed plan to allow gun owners with permits to carry concealed weapons across state lines also failed to reach the 60-vote threshold - but earned more votes, 57, than the background checks amendment.

Besides the "concealed carry" proposal, the Senate rejected on a 52-48 vote, eight short of the 60 needed, an amendment from Grassley that would have replaced the existing gun-control bill with a plan to focus on prosecuting gun crimes, improving mental health records for gun owners and funding better school safety measures.

"Rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding Americans, we should be focusing on keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, which this legislation accomplishes," Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said of Grassley's measure.

(Additional reporting by Kim Dixon; Editing by David Lindsey and Peter Cooney)


View the original article here

NHCLC Applauds Proposed Senate Immigration Reform Bill

We Are Inches Away from Crossing the 'Jordan' of Reform

WASHINGTON, April 17, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the nation's largest Christian Hispanic organization, the Hispanic Evangelical Association, and NHCLC President, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, applaud the proposed Senate bill on immigration reform.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120912/CL72800LOGO )

Rodriguez will join Senator Marco Rubio and the bipartisan Senate "Gang of Eight" in a press conference in Washington, D.C on Thursday, April 18, 2013, as they outline their proposed immigration reform bill. The Senate introduced legislation, which serves to solve the immigration reform process, at 2 a.m. this morning (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf).

Rev. Rodriguez, praising this movement and momentum for reform, said, "Engaging a biblical narrative as a metaphor, the immigration cause no longer resides in the Egypt of political apathy or the desert of inevitable deportation. Today, this just cause stands before the 'Jordan' called reform. With prophetic courage, spiritual fortitude and political will, we will cross into the promise land of integration thus protecting our values, borders and dream.

"Ironically the same issue that once polarized our nation now serves as a conduit for bipartisan collaboration. Now is the time."

Today, on the same day that the Senate introduced immigration reform legislation, hundreds of evangelical congregants and leaders from over 24 states descended upon Washington, D.C. for the first-ever national "Evangelical Day of Prayer and Action on Immigration Reform." Dr. Carlos Moran, Board Member, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and NHCLC Immigration Spokesperson is one of several leaders speaking at this event in D.C, many of whom believe the Unites States is on the verge of a major and much anticipated breakthrough on immigration reform.

Dr. Carlos Moran, said, "As Evangelicals, as born again believers, as the spiritual heirs to the mantles of Billy Graham and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we affirm our conviction that it is the time to reconcile border security with security of our values; values that include faith, hope and charity. Values that prompt us to worship our Lord and welcome the stranger. For at the end of the day, passing immigration reform is not, as Rev. Samuel Rodriguez reminds us, about advancing the agenda of the donkey or the elephant. Immigration reform is about living out the agenda of the lamb."

Rev. Wilfredo "Choco" DeJesus, profiled along with Rev. Rodriguez's description of the Latino Reformation in the April 15th TIME magazine feature story, and Pastor of New Life Covenant Church, NHCLC Vice President and NHCLC Illinois Chapter Director, said, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform is long overdue. As long as a pathway to citizenship remains at the heart of this bill I remain hopeful that undocumented families will be offered the opportunity to stay together and not be torn apart by our current broken immigration system. These families are woven into the fabric of our daily lives – their children attend school with our children, they worship and are active in our churches, they are contributing members of our society. As a pastor and NHCLC Vice President of Social Justice, I will continue to advocate and stand for the millions of undocumented families that deserve a pathway to citizenship as the word of God instructs me to do."

ABOUT THE NHCLC  
The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the nation's largest Christian Hispanic organization, is the Hispanic Evangelical Association unifying, serving and representing millions in the Hispanic Born Again Community-including Puerto Rico-via 40,118 member churches by reconciling the vertical and horizontal of the Christian message through the 7 Directives Including Family, Life, Compassionate Evangelism, Stewardship, Justice, Education and Youth.

TO BOOK an INTERVIEW or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT with REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ
Matti Stevenson • 719.360.0586 • mattistevenson@nhclc.org

SOURCE National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 4, 2013

Senate backers of expanded gun background checks scramble for votes

By David Lawder and John Whitesides

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers appeared on Tuesday to be short of the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate, as supporters scrambled to save the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's effort to reduce gun violence.

But Senate leaders scheduled a Wednesday vote for the expanded background checks plan forged by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, along with eight other amendments ranging from banning assault weapons to expanding permission to carry concealed firearms.

The proposals need 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles erected by Republican opponents in the 100-seat Senate, where Democrats control 55 seats.

With several Democrats from conservative, gun-friendly states possibly voting against the measure, supporters have been hunting for more Republican support, which has proven elusive.

"It's going to be close," a senior Senate Democratic aide said of the vote scheduled for around 4 p.m. (2000 GMT).

Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, who opposes the proposal, told reporters that its supporters "don't have the votes to pass it."

He intends to offer a substitute amendment on Wednesday and argued that the Manchin-Toomey plan would not have stopped the December massacre of 20 school children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, or other mass shootings.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid rejected the idea that the background checks amendment had lost momentum since it was announced last week and was headed to defeat.

"Am I saying it's all over with, done, we've got the votes? No. But we certainly feel we have the wind at our back," Reid told reporters.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment to extend criminal background checks to online and gun-show sales has been seen as Obama's best hope for meaningful gun-control legislation in response to the Newtown shootings.

Opinion polls show more than 80 percent of Americans favor expanded background checks, but the amendment is opposed by the National Rifle Association gun lobby and most Republicans in the Democrat-led Senate. Even if it clears the Senate, it would face a rough ride in the Republican-led House of Representatives.

The NRA has warned lawmakers it will include their vote in the ratings it compiles on them and sends to its 4 million members. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun-control group backed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has also said it will rate members of Congress based on their votes.

Former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, severely wounded in a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona, urged Senate Democrats to pass the measure during an appearance at their weekly luncheon.

Reid said Manchin also made a "moving, tearful" presentation at the luncheon.

"We are optimistic that this can pass," Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, told reporters after the meeting. "It's going to take a little work. That's why Gabby and I are here."

RURAL STATE COMPROMISE?

Administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, have helped Manchin and Toomey lobby senators.

Relatives of Newtown victims also visited Washington last week and held emotional meetings with lawmakers in which they urged them to support expanded background checks and other measures.

Among Republicans, only Toomey, Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois have committed to support the Senate proposal. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said on Sunday he was "favorably disposed" to it.

Several Democratic senators from states where hunting and guns are popular - including Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - remain uncommitted.

Democrats have explored changes to the background checks deal to allow exemptions in rural areas that do not have federally licensed gun dealers. The compromise would be aimed at winning senators from rural states such as Heitkamp and Begich.

"It's something we're looking at," Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York told reporters. "I never let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

But Republican opponents were increasingly confident they would win any showdown vote on the background checks.

"I don't think Toomey-Manchin is going to fly. I don't know where (they are) going to get the votes," Republican Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska told reporters, adding that the entire gun bill was in "serious trouble."

'NEW OBLIGATIONS' ON GUN OWNERS?

Whatever is eventually agreed to appears likely to fall far short of what Obama sought immediately after the Newtown shootings. The bill also includes tighter restrictions on gun trafficking and more funding for school security.

Amendments to add restrictions such as a ban on the sale of rapid-firing "assault" weapons like the one used in Newtown and limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines appear to have little chance for approval.

Opponents of the Manchin-Toomey plan and some other elements of the legislation say the proposals are an example of government overreach that would infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms.

"Manchin-Toomey would impose new obligations on law-abiding gun owners," Grassley said.

Manchin and Toomey, both conservatives and strong proponents of gun rights, have argued that their proposal would simply make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns.

Their amendment includes sweeteners for gun-rights supporters, including a provision that would make licensed interstate sales easier and ban the creation of a gun registry, one of the frequent fears cited by groups such as the NRA.

(Editing by David Lindsey, David Brunnstrom and Paul Simao)


View the original article here