Archive for the 'Grassley' Category

Who Will Lose with Healthcare Reform?

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Health, wordpress, Politics, Kennedy, obama, Medicare, Grassley, Congress, Legislation, Dodd, Sen Olympia Snowe, Sen Max Baucus on October 19th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

healthcare reformAs the healthcare debate drags on more questions are raised than answered. Perhaps good news for drug companies and bad news for the insurance industry. The partisan bill and vote in the Senate Finance Committee last week may lead to a rewrite this week. The last estimate on the cost of the bill was over $800 billion. And about the only sure thing is that it will cost taxpayers more money. Covering uninsured with tax credits and expanding Medicaid will raise tax bills for the rest of us.

If mandates from Congress force insurers to payout more claims with lower premiums anyone’s math should arrive at the obvious conclusion. Politicians will dictate who wins and who loses yet they have the audacity syndrome to label insurance companies as the villains. Simply because they oppose the idea of losses created by Congress.

One self-proclaimed winner from so-called healthcare reform is from David Snow of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. You may find it interesting to follow the Merck spinoff history of this company. There are those who would say the history of Merck and Medco Health Solutions produced a dark cloud in the trustworthy department. That may raise more issues about the winners and losers in reform.

The ten year eighty billion dollar plan between the White House and Big Pharma is as suspect as the Obama Administration’s claim that the insurance industry opposition to reform is ’smoke and mirrors’. The White House should use those mirrors to check their own claims in the debate.

Read the WSJ piece referenced below to arm yourself with more information for the battle in the weeks ahead. And if you think it is alright for insurers to get beat down by politicians with healthcare reform stop to think who else stands to lose. That might be another job for one of those mirrors mentioned earlier.

fact vs fictionCEOs Tally Health-Bill Score
Drug Makers and Hospitals Figure to Benefit, While Insurers Brace for a Big Hit

The drug industry stands to gain in a health-care overhaul by getting tens of millions of newly insured customers, while insurance companies — especially those that cater to the individual market — look like they are in for a tougher time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Smaller Government Equals Less Problems

Posted in Public Affairs, Health, wordpress, Politics, Biden, obama, Freedom, Grassley, Congress, Legislation on August 20th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

TheNewDeal.jpg

A common situation has occurred at numerous town hall meetings this summer as politicians face their constituents on the topic of healthcare reform. Voters are mad and most object to more government control or a takeover of their healthcare choices.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a key Republican negotiator in the quest for bipartisan health-care reform, said Wednesday that the outpouring of anger at town hall meetings this month has fundamentally altered the nature of the debate and convinced him that lawmakers should consider drastically scaling back the scope of the effort.

After being besieged by protesters at meetings across his home state of Iowa, Grassley said he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to “a government takeover of health care.”

It is refreshing that the public has finally engaged their political representatives on not only a government takeover of healthcare but the fact that spending is out of control, debt is crushing the economy and destroying the future for generations of Americans.

What is not refreshing is that Senator Grassley and others still don’t get it, exactly. No scale back, no little healthcare takeover, no little spending programs, we do not need any of it. Drop the idea. Continue the discussion on solving issues but drop the ‘reform’ idea as it stands now. Government needs to be scaled back and not increased by any legislative measure now before Congress. Government is out of control and spends too much. Not every problem can or should be solved with more government. The solution is less government. We cannot afford more of it.

PIEDMONT, S.C. — U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis is a Republican who says he doesn’t support the president’s approach to health care. But Mr. Inglis’s efforts to suggest other ways the government could change the system have stirred up his upstate South Carolina district.

Congressman Inglis could have stopped with opposing Obamacare. Instead, like Grassley, he somehow feels compelled to distance himself from the liberal complaint that the GOP is the party of ‘no’. He could have simply explained dropping the healthcare reform idea would satisfy most of his constituents. But instead, he suggests other ideas.

Mr. Inglis favors requiring everyone to carry health insurance, which he said the government “is uniquely suited” to enforce. He also supports making insurers guarantee coverage to anyone willing to pay for it, subsidizing premiums for people on low incomes and a series of policy changes intended to reduce premiums for everyone.

He is finding it risky as he searches for a middle ground acceptable to those who support providing more people with coverage, and those who don’t want any expansion of the government’s role.

There is little public support for healthcare reform and even most POLS are not happy with it. Yet some POLS keep trying to find reform rather than drop the idea. And there are other healthcare ideas that should not see the light of day.

Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce Thursday nearly $1.2 billion in grants to help hospitals transition to electronic medical records.

Biden and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were set to detail in Chicago how that piece of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan would help Americans when they go to the hospital or their doctors. It also is a what’s-in-it-for-me way for the White House to illustrate how it is spending parts of the massive amount of taxpayer dollars.

There’s another government idea ripe with problems. Like most government ideas they make it sound like a good thing. But the problem is in the details. With your medical records available to anyone who can gain access to the ‘electronic’ system the chance for abusing the system and exposing your personal data increases.

Those who support the liberal agenda will continue to push it. And those POLS opposed to it will continue to find an alternative even if no one wants it. The White House and Congress would find life much simpler as well as getting things done that people favor if they would just stop spending and increasing the size of government. Correcting the problems they have already caused would be a good place to start.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Death panel’s 1st victim…. the death panel (maybe)

Posted in Public Affairs, Health, wordpress, Politics, disclosure, ethics, Law, obama, Opinion, Medicare, Grassley, Congress, Legislation on August 13th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

grim reaperfrom Hot Air
Breaking: Finance Committee drops “death panel” provisions from Senate bill
posted at 3:23 pm on August 13, 2009 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised it took them this long. If it had been Palin and the right tossing rhetorical grenades, they might have gone to the mat to keep it in there, but as the ‘Cuda herself noted in her response to Obama last night, it ain’t just conservatives who are freaked out by these provisions. Eugene Robinson and Charles Lane at WaPo also concluded that having “outside” input into end-of-life decisions when the government’s desperate to cut costs could lead to abuse; Mickey Kaus and Camille Paglia have hammered The One about it too. And Obama’s done himself no favors trying to explain what he has in mind, as Tom Maguire reminds us. From an interview in April:

from MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The Senate Finance Committee is dropping a controversial provision about end-of-life care from the health-care overhaul bill it is working on, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said Thursday.

from The Hill
The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as “death panels” to encourage euthanasia.

And a stupid comment from the Boston Globe’s Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor, in a section named political intelligence. This blog has both complimented and insulted the Globe in the past. Hey Foon!! Who, other than you and other liberal interests, says the death panel provision ‘idea’ has been debunked??
Senate panel drops end-of-life provision
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor August 13, 2009 02:45 PM

Though the idea that the health care overhaul bills call for “death panels” that would decide end-of-life care has been widely debunked, the Senate Finance Committee is dropping the controversial provision from its version.

The politically correct explanation from Grassley or others on dropping the provision from the Senate bill cites the risks, ‘misinterpretation of’ or ‘implementing incorrectly’. Is Foon trying to say public outrage had nothing to do with it? Probably. Sorry Foon, fear of an ass kicking in 2010 based on public outrage is the only reason it was dropped.

Just like gasoline prices falling from $4 or $5 per gallon to near the $2 level in the recent past was from massive declines in public consumption the faltering healthcare reform agenda of President Obama has been fueled by massive public outrage and opposition. Recall also that in the summer of 2007 shamnesty was defeated in Congress by the same pubic outrage. It is hoped that the collective learning curve of the general public will improve based on such information. If enough public pressure is applied the power brokers will submit. Keep it up folks!!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Frank and Grassley: Perfect Examples

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, wordpress, Politics, GOP, Democrats, News Media, Opinion, Grassley, Legislation, Rep Barney Frank on March 23rd, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Barney FrankCharles Grassley
Barney Frank and Charles Grassley on Face the Nation March 23rd are a perfect example of politicians playing to the public’s perceived emotions. It has little to do with solving problems. It merely is an attempt to gain support for whatever this lackluster (understatement) Congress and White House propose as solutions. Rather than publicly propose plans with details including benchmarks, oversight and periodic review as well as key performance measures and other metrics and accountability the old worn out response of spending taxpayer money to cover others’ failures is the constant, lame agenda from Washington.

Here’s the URL for the video….

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4882515n

If you prefer, here is a URL for the transcript….

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/grassley_frank_face_nation.html

Are there any leaders in Washington DC?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama, McCain and Washington Politics as Usual

Posted in Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, McCain, GOP, Democrats, lobbyist, disclosure, ethics, oversight, obama, Grassley, Congress, Military on February 12th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

This is not about the porkulus bill but still significant. Much has been said about candidate Obama’s promises and delivery of same as President. A recurring theme is recruiting lobbyists for his administration. William J Lynn is no exception. A registered lobbyist until July and Senior Vice President of Government Operations and Strategy for Raytheon he was nominated and confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense this week.

lame US SenateSenator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) voiced opposition on Obama’s selection. On his first day in office, Obama issued an executive order forcing individuals to wait two years before they could be hired for the agencies they had lobbied and to remove themselves from involvement in issues related to their former employers.

“Obviously the American people were promised one thing but delivered another,” said McCain, Obama’s opponent in the presidential election.

Grassley’s comments included mention of Lynn being yet another Obama pick from the former Clinton Administration. On Lynn’s time as comptroller at the Pentagon Grassley said the following: As chief financial officer, Lynn “advocated very questionable accounting practices that were obviously not in the public interest,” Grassley told his colleagues on the Senate floor.

Lynn’s lame expression of how and when he would recuse himself from ‘banned’ actiivties, as if being there wasn’t one of them, is compounded by the fact that McCain opposed this nomination but voted for Lynn anyway. At least Grassley voted against the confirmation as did three others.

You could say it does not matter how Senators vote after the 1/2 majority is reached for it does not affect the outcome. But there is the nagging obstacle with that argument called principle. You could say casting a vote for other reasons is a political necessity or reality but the same problem exists regarding principle. Sort of ironic to be discussing principle when the President promised no lobbyists would not be allowed, then changed his mind on the specifics and then his former campaign opponent expresses concern on the topic but votes in favor of a lobbyist confirmation anyhow.

The only part of Washington politics and hope and change from Obama and others is Washington still works the same way and they hope you won’t notice they did not change anything as promised in this regard. However a change in this republic to socialism is a stronger possibility no matter how often anyone dismisses the claim.

The roll call vote is of course listed below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
A Nation of Sheep
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation William J. Lynn, III, of Virginia, to the Deputy Secretary of Defense )
Vote Number: 62 Vote Date: February 11, 2009, 05:02 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed
Nomination Number: PN65-11
Nomination Description: William J. Lynn, III, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense

Vote Counts: YEAs 93
  NAYs 4
  Not Voting 2

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —93

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs —4

Coburn (R-OK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
McCaskill (D-MO)


Not Voting - 2

Gregg (R-NH) Kennedy (D-MA)

Self-serving Bill Gates Meet Self-serving Chuck Grassley

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Technology, wordpress, Microsoft, Politics, Immigration, United States, HP, telecom, Linux, Foreign Affairs, Grassley, Border Control, Minimum Wage, Apple, IBM, Blogs4Borders on January 27th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews

Imagine that.. Someone is interested in taking Bill Gates and his legacy, Microsoft, to task for laying off American workers. The complaint from US Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa ties the current financial crisis and the trend of increasing unemployment to companies who abuse the H-1B visa program of hiring foreign workers for American jobs.
microsoft fatal error
Political life in Washington may be as fragile as anything else vulnerable to the impact of severe economic downturns. Where was all this angst over visas and foreign workers during the summer of 2007 when Congress and the White House tried to pass McCain/Kennedy shamnesty? There’s hardly a difference. A primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend its citizens from foreign attack. Whether that is from the typical source of armed forces of another country or countries, the sinister terrorism from radical groups without a well-defined geopolitical base or an economic invasion on our shores and borders from foreign sources the task is understood. You protect your own citizens first and once protected then and only then do you extend assistance to those who are not citizens.

One could say better late than never except these occasional expressions from elected officials are more often political in nature and for their vested interest and not yours. Senator Grassley is an elected official with some volatility. Similar to a company’s stock which responds wildly and unpredictably to changes in the market. But this recent press release and letter from the Senator does have some usefulness. To bring some attention to both inequities in the labor market as well as a renewal notice that immigration policies including visa programs and offshore outsourcing are by no means dead issues. With the election of the most liberal senator in the US to the Office of President of the United States you can bet the farm on the fact the issue of amnesty will rear its ugly again this year or next.

For Immediate Release
January 23, 2009
Grassley Works to Ensure American Workers are Priority

grassleyWASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said that in a time of economic downturn, American workers must be a top priority for American companies. Grassley reiterated those words after he sent a letter to Microsoft urging the company to make efforts to retain qualified American workers during the recently announced lay-offs.

Microsoft employs thousands of people through the H-1B visa program. This temporary work visa program allows American companies and universities to employ temporary foreign guest workers who have the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree in a job category that is considered by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to be a “specialty occupation.” The purpose of the h-1b program is to help companies hire foreign guest workers on a temporary basis when there is not a sufficient qualified American workforce to meet those needs. However, the program is not intended to replace qualified American workers.

In October 2008, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released an internal report that found the H-1B program has more than a 20 percent violation rate. The fraud identified in the report included jobs not located where employers claimed, H-1B visa holders not being paid the prevailing wage, forged documents, fraudulent degrees, and shell businesses. In one instance the H-1B position described by the employer was “business development analyst.” However, it turned out that the H-1B visa holder would be working at a laundromat doing laundry and maintaining washing machines.

Grassley has been a leader in the effort to improve the H-1B visa program. In the 110th Congress, he introduced a comprehensive H-1B and L visa reform bill with Senator Dick Durbin that would give priority to American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skill jobs. He has also asked questions of both American and foreign based companies about their use of the H-1B visa program.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter

January 22, 2009
Mr. Steve Ballmer
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond , WA 98052-6399

Dear Mr. Ballmer:

I am writing to inquire about press reports that Microsoft will be cutting approximately 5,000 jobs over the next 18 months. I understand that the layoffs will affect workers in research and development, marketing, sales, finance, legal and corporate affairs, human resources, and information technology.

I am concerned that Microsoft will be retaining foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American employees when it implements its layoff plan. As you know, I want to make sure employers recruit qualified American workers first before hiring foreign guest workers. For example, I cosponsored legislation to overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to give priority to American workers and to crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skilled jobs. Fraud and abuse is rampant in these programs, and we need more transparency to protect the integrity of our immigration system. I also support legislation that would strengthen educational opportunities for American students and workers so that Americans can compete successfully in this global economy.

Last year, Microsoft was here on Capitol Hill advocating for more H-1B visas. The purpose of the H-1B visa program is to assist companies in their employment needs where there is not a sufficient American workforce to meet their technology expertise requirements. However, H-1B and other work visa programs were never intended to replace qualified American workers. Certainly, these work visa programs were never intended to allow a company to retain foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American workers, when that company cuts jobs during an economic downturn.

It is imperative that in implementing its layoff plan, Microsoft ensures that American workers have priority in keeping their jobs over foreign workers on visa programs. To that effect, I would like you to respond to the following questions:

* What is the breakdown in the jobs that are being eliminated? What kind of jobs are they? How many employees in each area will be cut?

* Are any of these jobs being cut held by H-1B or other work visa program employees? If so, how many?

* How many of the jobs being eliminated are filled by Americans? Of those positions, is Microsoft retaining similar ones filled by foreign guest workers? If so, how many?

* How many H-1B or other work visa program workers will Microsoft be retaining when the planned layoff is completed?

My point is that during a layoff, companies should not be retaining H-1B or other work visa program employees over qualified American workers. Our immigration policy is not intended to harm the American workforce. I encourage Microsoft to ensure that Americans are given priority in job retention. Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

The following is an excerpt from Microsoft’s website on the testimony of Bill Gates at a Congressional hearing in May 2008

illegal immigrationU.S. immigration policies need to allow American companies to hire the best talent. Gates calls on Congress to reform immigration policies to allow more highly skilled professionals to work for companies in the U.S. “At a time when talent is the key to economic success, it makes no sense to educate people in our universities, often subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, and then insist that they return home,” he said. “To address the shortage of scientists and engineers, we must … reform our education system and our immigration policies. If we don’t, American companies simply will not have the talent they need to innovate and compete.” Gates urges Congress and the White House to address this problem by extending the period that foreign students can work in the U.S. after graduation, raising the cap on H-1B visas, creating a clear path to permanent residency for high-skilled foreign-born employees and increasing the number of green cards. “The shortage of scientists and engineers is so acute that we must do both: reform our education system and reform our immigration policies.”

Funding for basic research should be increased. Gates believes basic research funding is an essential part of keeping American companies competitive and sparking new industries. “Even though we know that basic research drives economic progress, real federal spending on basic research has fallen since 2005,” he said. “I urge Congress to increase funding for basic research by 10 percent annually for the next seven years.” Gates said that federal funding for basic research supports the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers, and provides the raw material that U.S. companies transform into commercially successful products.

Here is one reaction by an elected representative obviously enamored by Mr Gates and a believer that the Darth Vader of IT brought worthwhile technology to the masses.

“Bill Gates has played a key role in our nation’s economic and technological growth for more than 20 years and I found his testimony today informative and compelling. I was most struck by Gates’ strong appeal to Congress to fully fund the America COMPETES Act. This new law makes a significant commitment to our country’s future by investing in math and science education and federal research. I will continue to vigorously advocate for funding of the America COMPETES Act,” said Rothman.

The excerpt below combined with asking government and the taxpayer to do his research for him are the things Bill Gates was really interested in.

I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.

posted for comedic valueIn summary the view from this blog is as follows. For regular readers the views here on Microsoft are known. As an example there are reports on another lawsuit against MS called ‘vista capable’ where customers are upset that hardware requirements for vista exceeded those stated or some such nonsense. While this blog detests the attitude of MS toward customers and the repeated crap software sold, if customers have not learned by now what they can expect from MS they deserve what they get. But that is not the central point of this post.

There was mention of funding research in the information provided. That’s nice. The question would be is it the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for research or educating future employees? Is it fair for the private sector to benefit from those expenditures rather than fund their own research? There are technology transfer programs with the federal government whereby arrangements are made to move publicly funded research to the private sector. Is a fair monetary exchange made for those transfers? And for the last point is Senator Grassley’s latest expression of discontent to Microsoft just another politician trying to make points with voters?

As this post really relates to the current economic conditions and the mass frenzy to push bailouts and stimulus packages on the public dime something else needs to be said. Once government does something undoing it is nearly impossible and if it is possible there is much more pain and suffering involved than would have been present with precise and reasoned action. There is no need for speed since no one in Washington nor anywhere else can guarantee that any solution suggested will work.

If these spending programs are to be deployed then they should be done in such a way as they can be stopped on command and rather than huge outlays smaller amounts should be floated as test balloons to avoid even larger mistakes. The experience thus far with AIG and others in their arrogance to spend taxpayer money should be proof enough that planned spending will not work without deadly force as a protection. Just today CITI has decided to buy a private jet. Ya, they say it will not be paid for with bailout funds. Right. If you need bailout funds then you don’t have enough of your own money or you lied about needing bailout funds. In any event you don’t need to buy a private jet. Has this post made the point clearly?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

GRASSLEY REITERATES POSITION ON IMMIGRATION BILL

Posted in Terrorism, wordpress, Immigration, Tancredo, United States, Law, Justice, Grassley, Border Control, Legislation on June 26th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

June 22nd, 2007

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement regarding the immigration reform bill that is expected to come before the Senate next week. The Senate debated the bill in late May and early June, but the bill was pulled from the floor because it could not garner enough votes to continue debate.

Grassley has said that he will not vote for an immigration reform bill as long as it contains amnesty.

“As long as amnesty remains in the bill that comes before the Senate next week, there is no question that I will vote against it. I’ve learned my lesson. I voted for amnesty in 1986 and I’m not about to do it again. Despite my opposition to the bill, I will be offering a number of amendments to make sure that the same mistakes aren’t repeated. Iowans can be certain that I will be working on their behalf to ensure that our borders are secured and employers are held accountable for their actions.”

-30-

Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amdt = Employer Amnesty

Posted in wordpress, Immigration, lobbyist, ethics, Law, Justice, obama, Grassley, Border Control, Business, Legislation on June 25th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

from MoreWhat.com:
Just about the time you think someone might be trying to do the right thing, they prove that is not the case. It had looked like Senator Baucus may have been on the correct side of the immigration mess. But with the publiciation of the press release below that is doubtful. The problem with the original S1348 was it did absolutely nothing to employers who hire illegal immigrants. As long as a good faith effort was made, which is like saying we’ll do nothing about it, the employers had no incentive to comply. Why the three legislators below need this amendment it ridiculous. But then few in the Senate other than Senators Jeff Sessions or Elizabeth Dole understand it is all about enforcement.

With all the political shenanigans (not the first choice of words) going on in Washington on this and other issues, the landscape changes daily. You can compliment a politician one day for doing the right thing but then they work a backroom deal and the game changes. Or the game is the same but they rearranged the guilty parties. No pun intended.

One last point on this press release needs some exposure. Who is the source of the PR? The National Association of Home Builders and a chance they may favor hiring illegal immigrants. Separating the wheat from the chaff just doesn’t get any easier these days.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment Puts Immigration Bill Back on Right Track

WASHINGTON, June 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A bipartisan amendment
put forth by Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and
Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is critical to putting immigration reform back on the
right track, according to the nation’s home builders.
“Everyone has a stake in reforming the nation’s immigration laws in a
fair and just manner that will enhance our border security and provide a
sensible process for people to enter our country legally,” said Jerry
Howard, executive vice president and CEO of the National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB). “The Grassley/Baucus/Obama amendment would help
achieve these aims by improving the bill’s employer provisions to allow
small business owners to play a constructive role in the enforcement of the
new laws.”
As the immigration bill now stands, it would punish small business
owners by holding them accountable for the hiring decisions made by their
subcontractors. In effect, America’s home builders — along with other U.S.
employers who rely on subcontractors — would be required to join a
national posse charged with verifying the legal status of millions of
workers they never hired in the first place and may have never met, said
Howard.
“By ensuring that the responsibility for verifying a worker’s
immigration status is placed where it really belongs — with the employer
who hires and pays them — the Grassley/Baucus/Obama amendment offers a
sensible solution to the enforcement issue,” said Howard. “It also makes it
possible for employers to act in good faith and to follow the new rules for
determining whether a person is in the country legally.”
It is estimated that more than 20 percent of the home building
industry’s entire workforce is foreign-born, making the immigrant
population essential to meeting housing demand and sustaining economic
growth in this country.
The Grassley/Baucus/Obama amendment, Howard added, would also simplify
the new federal verification system by giving employers the option of
calling a national data base to determine a person’s legal status at the
time they are being hired.
ABOUT NAHB: The National Association of Home Builders is a Washington-
based trade association representing more than 235,000 members involved in
home building, remodeling, multifamily construction, property management,
subcontracting, design, housing finance, building product manufacturing and
other aspects of residential and light commercial construction. Known as
“the voice of the housing industry,” NAHB is affiliated with more than 800
state and local home builders associations around the country. NAHB’s
builder members will construct 80 percent of the more than 1.45 million new
housing units projected for 2007.

SOURCE National Association of Home Builders

Sen Chuck Grassley: S1348 Flaws

Posted in Terrorism, wordpress, Immigration, Tancredo, United States, Grassley, Congress, Border Control on June 23rd, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

May 22nd, 2007

GRASSLEY OUTLINES HOW AMNESTY REALLY WORKS IN IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL
Top 15 Amnesty Flaws Revealed

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today revealed his Top 15 flaws with the amnesty program in the immigration reform bill being debated in the United States Senate. He pointed out that the amnesty section in the Senate immigration bill is ripe for abuse and rotten for national security.

“I voted for amnesty more than 20 years ago. I believed at the time that by giving illegal aliens blanket citizenship, we would solve the problem. I was wrong. We’ve now got at least 12 million people illegal aliens thumbing their nose at our laws,” Grassley said. “We found out that by rewarding illegality, we only get more illegality.”

Grassley said that if the bill passes, the amnesty provisions would allow for illegal aliens to immediately apply for probationary status. If they are approved, the illegal alien would automatically receive a Social Security number and work authorization. In 1-2 years, once certain requirements are met by the federal government, the illegal alien can apply for a “Z” visa for himself, spouse, children and parents over the age of 65. At this point the illegal alien may legally remain in the United States while waiting for the current backlog of visa applications to be cleared. After the backlog is cleared, the illegal can apply for a greencard or renew his/her “Z” visa. Click here for a chart outlining the amnesty process.

Here are Grassley’s Top 15 amnesty flaws.

· Probationary benefits not subject to the trigger – Probationary benefits, including work authorization, protection from removal, and a social security number are granted to illegal aliens immediately, even if the alien’s background check is not complete.

* Many criminal provisions may be waived – Numerous criminal provisions are waived for eligibility purposes. For example, an alien who falsely claims U.S. citizenship would be considered eligible for amnesty even though it’s a crime.

· Background checks taken too lightly – An illegal alien can apply for probationary status and a Z visa without thorough background checks. Immediately after the bill passes, the alien can apply for probationary legal status and receive a card even if the alien’s background check is not complete.

· Illegal aliens protected from removal – If an alien is in removal proceedings, or being detained, at the time of enactment, the alien can still apply for amnesty. Aliens who apply for amnesty cannot be detained or deported while their application is being processed, essentially giving them immunity from justice.

· Terrorists and criminals can apply for amnesty – The Secretary of Homeland Security is allowed to waive the grounds of ineligibility for those who have an outstanding administrative final order of removal, deportation or exclusion. Currently there are more than 637,000 alien absconders in the United States that have defied orders to leave.

· Taxes – Illegal aliens are required to provide the IRS information about tax payments only when applying for legal permanent residence, if that avenue is pursued. Illegal aliens can skirt the federal, state and local tax laws because its not a requirement to prove one has paid outstanding tax liabilities to get probationary or Z status.

* Limits eligibility to illegal aliens – Creates a Z nonimmigrant visa program for illegal aliens and illegal aliens only. No one else is eligible for this program, particularly those waiting their turn in line. Also, there’s no cap on the number of eligible participants.

· Indefinite renewal for Z nonimmigrant visas – Z nonimmigrant visas are valid for four years and may be renewed indefinitely. This is a disincentive for illegal aliens to pay the $4,000 penalty, touch-back to their home country, prove they’ve paid their taxes, or receive a medical exam.

· Health standards ignored – No medical exam or immunizations are needed to get a Z visa.

* No incentive to learn English – There is no English requirement to get a Z visa. Each Z nonimmigrant must only demonstrate “an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language” upon the first renewal of a Z visa. There are waivers for this requirement.

* Green card applicants not required to return to home country – Green card applications (only for heads of household, not dependents) must be filed in person outside the but not necessarily in the alien’s country of origin. The alien can then reenter (same day) under a Z nonimmigrant visa because it serves as a valid travel document. There are exceptions for this requirement.

· Fines are False and Misleading – Not everyone is required to pay the $5,000 penalty. To get a Z visa, a principal alien (Z-1 or head of household) must pay a $1,000 penalty, a $500 penalty for each dependent, a processing fee, and a $500 state impact fee. Dependents must also pay a processing fee. To renew a Z nonimmigrant visa, each Z visa holder must pay a processing fee no greater than $1,500. To get a greencard, if the alien intends to pursue this route, a Z-1 nonimmigrant must pay a $4,000 penalty. Z-2 (parents and spouse) and Z-3 (children) aliens are only required to pay application fees.

· Fines won’t adequately pay for cost of amnesty – The bulk of the monetary fines are required at the end of the program. All fines may be paid in installments and waivers are available in extraordinary circumstances.

· Impact on state and local government – State impact money will be granted to states to provide services for non-citizens only, instead of providing services to all citizens impacted by the large number of illegal immigrants (school systems, health care services).

· Revocation of terrorist visas – Visas revoked on terrorism grounds would allow Z visa holders to remain in the United States and use the U.S. court system to appeal terrorism charges. The bill, including the amnesty program, does not address visa revocation for any visa holder.

-30-

S. 1348 and 350 Amendments

Posted in Money Matters, Health, Bush, wordpress, Politics, McCain, Immigration, Kennedy, Kyl, disclosure, ethics, Specter, Law, Justice, Grassley, Border Control, Legislation, durbin, Sen Dianne Feinstein, Sen Barbara Boxer on June 11th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

This is easily the fourth or fifth time a post on this blog has urged citizens to continue pressing Congress and the White House to abandon S. 1348 and simply enforce current immigration law. More information has surfaced on why the Senate amnesty bill is bad legislation.

A Kennedy aide said lawmakers are negotiating to pair Republicans amendments with Democratic ones should the bill resurface. The amendment strategy also includes an overall “manager’s amendment” with language proposed by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., on H-1B visas and employer-based green cards as well as changes to two amendments adopted by the Senate on guestworkers and confidentiality rights for illegal immigrants.

As if it was not bad enough Senators like Dick Durbin claim to be opposed to illegal immigration and immediately submit amendments on visa matters but now Maria Cantwell is pushing the same thing and worse. For those who claim an intention of bringing illegals out of the shadows, hard coding ‘confidentiality’ seems an odd way to do it. This is just another example of all the political deals associated with this legislation. The worst is it offers amnesty and just as bad it will increase visas, quotas and every other way to accommodate the rest of the world and ignore the needs of US citizens.

How can any bill be worthwhile with 350 amendments waiting that are published on the Congressional information website Thomas (click here) The reasonable conclusion to draw is the bill will essentially be rewritten on the fly. So, they cannot pass a flawed bill, they will weigh it down with amendments and to buy votes they’ll pass some of them. No one will take the time to read what they really have and the bill will be dumped on the American public.

This amendment situation is such a mess it is nearly impossible to tell the good guys from the bad or who is trying to do what with the amendments. One can only assume they are meant to sway votes one way or the other or simply cause so much frustration the bill dies. The bottom line is everyone still needs to urge their reps to kill S. 1348. There is no chance it will do anything but deliver amnesty for illegals and do nothing to solve the problem.

One of the most disturbing items aside from the list of amendments being at 350 and counting is a sentence that accompanies many of them. Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. Nothing like being kept in the dark while you’re being kept in the dark.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Amnesty YEAs and NAYs

Posted in Bush, wordpress, Lieberman, Biden, McCain, Immigration, Kennedy, Kyl, Clinton, Specter, obama, hillary, kerry, Reid, Feingold, Byrd, Grassley, Congress, Border Control, Hagel, Senator Enzi, Carl Levin, Brownback, lugar, Sen Orrin Hatch, Sen Dianne Feinstein, Sen Barbara Boxer, Sen Chuck Schumer, Sen Robert Menendez, Dodd on June 9th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

Justice and the rule of lawWe all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

GOP, Dems, Illegals and Iraq

Posted in Money Matters, Bush, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, McCain, GOP, Democrats, Rumsfeld, Immigration, Tancredo, Kennedy, Kyl, Clinton, Waxman, lobbyist, ethics, Afghanistan, Specter, U.N., United States, Law, Justice, Safety, Public, Sensenbrenner, obama, kerry, romney, Freedom, Cheney, Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer, Feingold, Edwards, Foreign Affairs, Dingell, Grassley, Congress, Silvestre Reyes, Tony Blair, Border Control, Minimum Wage, Business, Gingrich, Hagel, Legislation, Military, David Obey, Colin Powell, Mitch McConnell, giuliani, durbin, Halliburton, Sen Dianne Feinstein on May 17th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

Our TroopsThe extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?

Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.

Illegal ImmigrationTo a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.

The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.

Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.

As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq

Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.

Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal

Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.

Congress to Approve Sale of USA

Posted in Public Affairs, Bush, Terrorism, wordpress, Politics, Biden, McCain, GOP, Immigration, Tancredo, News Media, Kennedy, Kyl, Clinton, lobbyist, ethics, Specter, America, United States, Law, Justice, Sensenbrenner, obama, hillary, Jeff Flake, Pelosi, Reid, Feingold, UAW, Byrd, Grassley, Congress, Border Control, Hagel, Legislation, David Obey, Carl Levin, Brownback, durbin, Sen Dianne Feinstein, Sen Barbara Boxer on May 15th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

Amnesty MoneyIt may sound outragious to the casual observer or typical apathetic or bleeding heart version of American, but the laws against treason should have a section that addresses politicians who sell this country by accepting money from every special interest and who do their bidding regardless of the negative impact on this nation.

A report from Politico has it right and wrong. The report describes the power and influence, meaning political contributions, etc., of the ‘goliath’ supporting amnesty in immmigration legislation. Senate bill 1348 is the culmination of Harry Reid’s push via Kyl, Kennedy and others to circumvent existing legislation that has been rendered useless through the Bush Administration and others before them refusing to enforce immigration and border control.

Amnesty lobby is immigration Goliath

Nearly every major corporation, trade association, union and civil rights group has a dog in this fight — but most of them seek slightly different things. Companies and trade associations mainly seek reforms in the green card and visa process, while most unions want changes in the guest worker program; civil rights groups press for a path to citizenship above all. The challenge, lobbyists say, remains for these groups to band together to thwart anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and others trying to fan the flames of grass-roots angst against illegal — and legal — immigration.

The Politico report describes the ‘goliath’ push for easing unenforced immigration laws against what it called the grassroots angst against illegal and legal immigration. That part is wrong. It is not angst. And it is not against legal immigration.

Some new direction

There are seven immigration ‘reform’ bills on the active legislation list at the Senate. This is just a dog and pony show to mask the elimination of immigration and border control as ‘’immigration reform’. The middle class will pay for the crushing burden of opening the immigration flood gates while the politicians and corporate interests line their pockets with the profit from illegal immigration in the form of cheap labor and campaign contributions.

The result will include an increased risk in attack by terrorists that is being sanctioned by political and corporate wrongdoing that explains the ealier suggestion of expanding the laws against treason in this country to include this type of criminal behavior.

Nation of Sheep

But the vast majority of Americans have not the vision to see what is being done to them and have developed such an iron clad shield of apathy they simply nod in agreement and continue to bend over and let it happen again. To which the powerful interests are unable to ignore the opportunity to abuse it again. The few individuals and ‘grassroots’ groups that continue to oppose such travesties are mostly ignored and the cycle repeats itself.

While some of us lobby our representatives and get involved in local, state or national efforts to thwart the open borders crowd and other threats to this nation, the rest of you sit idly by with a front row seat watching the ease with which special interest steals the country from under you.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sen Chuck Grassley: Beating a Dead Horse

Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Health, wordpress, Medicare, Grassley, Business, Big Pharma, Legislation on May 7th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

Sen Chuck GrassleyDo you suppose it is possible that Chuck Grassley and friends are missing the point? Prescription drug prices are merely one symptom of a health care system that is totally out of control. Another major symptom is the refusal of Congress to deal effectively with this problem.

From public and private sector components of the medical industry, including health insurance and medicare, to the legislature and the consuming public, we have it all wrong. Every facet of this issue is littered with no responsibility for the financial structure of providing health care. Providers are often unaware or unable to determine what to charge for services to break even. Consumers rely on insurance to cover the bulk of the cost. The government is complicit by adding to the pass the buck mentality on who pays for what. The system is so convoluted and drowning in regulations and paperwork it is ripe for fraud and abuse.

Health CareIn other words Mr Grassley, your support of importing drugs from other countries solves nothing. There is no real competition or incentive for it in the health care system. And even if you were lucky enough to lower some prices it would not be universal nor would it affect the price of health care services. Even before the failed Clinton Administration health care reform, no one in Washington is interested in real health care reform. It is all smoke and mirrors and political rhetoric. Get a grip and do something real about health care or simply stop talking about something you will never fix.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

May 1st, 2007

GRASSLEY: IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO BUY CHEAPER PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FROM OTHER

COUNTRIESSenator sponsors amendment to ensure timely access to safe, lower-priced pharmaceuticals

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance, today joined in proposing an amendment that would make it legal for U.S. consumers to buy safe prescription drugs from other countries.

The legislation was filed as an amendment to the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act that is under consideration this week by the U.S. Senate. Grassley sponsored the measure with Sens. Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe.

Why Americans Should Be Able to Import Drugs

(Sen. Chuck Grassley)
May 4th, 2007

Making it legal for Americans to import their prescription drugs is a top priority at the grass roots. It needs to be a top priority here in Washington. I have long advocated allowing American consumers access to safe drugs from other countries.

Will Senator Harry Reid Cut and Run?

Posted in Israel, Bush, Terrorism, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, Sean Hannity, Lieberman, Biden, McCain, Democrats, Rumsfeld, Tancredo, Religion, liberal, blog, News Media, Kennedy, Clinton, syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Osama bin Laden, Specter, North Korea, Nuke, U.N., United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Iran, Hamas, Palestine, obama, hillary, kerry, romney, Freedom, Africa, Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer, Reid, Edwards, Foreign Affairs, Byrd, Grassley, Congress, Silvestre Reyes, Islam, Muslim, Tony Blair, Abbas, Fatah, Hagel, Legislation, Military, Carl Levin, Putin, Mitch McConnell, Kim Jong il, Australia, durbin on February 24th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews

Sen Harry Reid If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.