Citizens United, that infamous decision by the US Supreme Court that allows unlimited secret campaign contributions through SuperPacs, could be seeing it’s end days if Senate Democrats get their way.
“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer.
“The only way to undo the damage the court has done is to pass Senator Udall’s amendment to the Constitution, and Senate Democrats are going to try to do that,” he said.
Schumer said the vote would take place by year’s end and called on Republican colleagues to join Democrats to ensure “the wealthy can’t drown out middle-class voices in our Democracy.”
Sen. Charles Schumer says new legislation proposed in the name of Avonte Oquendo, the 14-year-old New York City boy who disappeared from his school and was found dead three months later, would fund voluntary tracking devices for children who have autism.
Schumer (D-N.Y.), accompanied by Avonte’s mother and grandmother, Sunday to announce “Avonte’s Law.” The legislation would create a program that provides tracking devices and expands support services for families with autistic children.
Schumer says it would be similar to a federal program that tracks seniors who have Alzheimer’s disease. The $10 million in funds would go to police departments, which would hand out the devices to parents who request them.
“It will help put parents at ease, save precious lives,” Schumer told reporters, including 1010 WINS’ Glenn Schuck. “Avonte’s Law will allow his memory to live on while helping to prevent more children with autism from going missing.
“The technology will allow parents of all children with autism, no matter how much or how little money they have, to enjoy the benefits of a high-tech solution to an age-old problem.”
Avonte’s mother and grandmother weren’t ready to speak to reporters, but their lawyer, David Perecman, told WCBS 880′s Monica Miller that a tracking system would be a fitting tribute to the teen.
“The goal today, because we can’t go back in time, is to make sure … never again,” Perecman said. “And this will help.”
“Do they simply want the economy to go down the drain to further their political gain? They seem to be against anything that may create jobs, because they view a weak economy as key to their political chances in 2012.
“It’s an uncomfortable question, to be sure. Are they trying to undermine the economy on purpose, for political gain? Harry Truman had a do-nothing Congress. The Republicans seem to be trying to make this a do-nothing-on-the-economy Congress.”
Better late than never. Finally, Senator Chuck Schumer and other Congressional Democrats are beginning to believe what the rest of America has known since Rush Limbaugh’s admission a few weeks after President Obama was sworn in: “I want this president to fail”. And ever since then Congressional Republicans have been on a mission to make sure Rush Limbaugh gets his wish.
The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell also expressed Limbaugh’s sentiments when in October 2010, he explained what his number one priority was. No, it wasn’t fixing the economy. No, it wasn’t finding ways to put Americans back to work, and if you thought his number one priority was making sure America recovers from this recession, then you’ll be wrong again. McConnell, the Republican’s leader, said his party’s number one priority was to make sure President Obama was a one term president. In an interview with the National Journal, this was the exchange with McConnell;
MCCONNELL: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NATIONAL JOURNAL: What’s the job?
MCCONNELL: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
President Obama was sworn in on January 20th, 2009, and now, a little over 2 years into his presidency, Congressional Democrats are finally seeing the light. Schumer continued;
“If there’s one thing the GOP has stood for throughout their history, it’s free trade. When Senator Baucus unveiled an agreement to proceed, you would have thought Republicans would jump for joy. Instead, Republicans took us down the rabbit hole once again.”
“Are Republicans opposing yet another measure they once supported simply because that measure might be good for the economy?” Schumer asked, also citing GOP opposition to recent measures like a payroll tax cut and to small business development programs.
Pressed by a reporter on whether he really believes the GOP wants to destroy the economy on purpose, Schumer went further than ever before, taking things out of the realm of the hypothetical.
“It’s a thought you don’t want to believe,” Schumer said, “but every day they keep giving us more and more evidence that there’s no choice but to answer Yes.”
With Republicans like this in government, who needs terrorists? We’ve got our own, and they’re actively working to destroy the very foundation of this country.
Okay, so there really is a first for everything. Consider this our first and maybe not the last critique of this Administration.
What is going on with President Obama? The National Journal is reporting massive cuts to LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program), a federally funded program geared towards helping the poorer among us to heat their homes during the cold winter months. The report states that this will be “the biggest domestic spending cut disclosed so far, and one that will likely generate the most heat from the president’s traditional political allies.”
This is obviously an effort by the administration to appease the Republican party, who have promised the Teaparty that they will impose massive cuts to domestic spending programs.
The decision has left some in the President’s own party scratching their heads. The report continues;
One White House friend, Sen. Chuck Schumer,D-N.Y., said earlier today that a Republican proposal to cut home heating oil counted as an “extreme idea” that would “set the country backwards.” Schumer has not yet reacted to Obama’s proposed cut. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., declared: “The President’s reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it.” A spokesman for Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., declared similarly: “If these cuts are real, it would be a very disappointing development for millions of families still struggling through a harsh winter.”
In a letter to Obama, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote, “We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season.”
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, would see funding drop by about $2.5 billion from an authorized 2009 total of $5.1 billion. The proposed cut will not touch the program’s emergency reserve fund, about $590 million, which can be used during particularly harsh cold snaps or extended heat spells, three officials told National Journal
They’re pretty certain the provision will hold up against the onslaught of the Republicans and the Supreme Court, but just in case the unexpected happens, some Congressional Democrats are already making other preparations to replace the individual mandate.
One idea floating around is that of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). According to her plan, an open enrollment period will be offered where people can voluntarily buy insurance policy. After that period passes, anyone wishing to purchase insurance will incur a penalty, causing their policy to be considerably higher.
The idea is based on existing requirements, where once a year individuals get to choose their insurance policies that best suit their needs. After that period passes, they face an expensive alternative when the need to get insurance arises.
Derek Thompson of the Washington Posts explained it this way;
Let’s say I tell you at the beginning of flu season that you can buy Nyquil for a $2 discount today, but tomorrow the price will go up to $20 forever. What do you do? You stock up on Nyquil, of course! Note that I haven’t required that you do anything. I’ve just weighted the incentives to make you buy the medicine. It’s not a mandate, just an irresistible deal.
Although this plan sounds like a great idea, even Claire McCaskill have reservations. She explains, “the issue is will the research support that approach as workable to still allow us to cover people with pre-existing conditions.”
The advantage of the individual mandate meant that everyone had a responsibility to insure themselves, thus, bringing more money into the insurance industry eventually reflecting in lower premiums for individuals. It also allow for the coverage of pre-existing conditions because more people will be involved in the program. Mrs. McCaskill’s method raises questions about whether pre-existing conditions and other important aspects of the Health reform will be implemented if individuals choose not to participate.
As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressed his concerns with this idea, saying that altering the mandate will weaken the bill. He said;
“You’d have to look at the specific proposals. The bottom line is that if you change the mandate, one of two things will happen: Many of the good things in the bill will not be there, such as pre-existing conditions, or premiums will go way, way up.”
The individual mandate is under attack by Republicans as unconstitutional, although when the idea was first floated in 1993 for then president George Bush, they were all in support of the idea. Mr. Mark Pauly, the original author of the now controversial idea said questioning the mandate’s constitutionality was never the issue when it was first introduced, saying;
“I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insurance that way or went and got it another way. So I’ve been surprised at that argument.”
Over the last two years of the Obama administration, Republicans went on a rampage, setting a record for the most filibusters – the process of debating an issue with the eventual outcome of slowing down or stopping the policy from being voted on – in one year since the practice began back in the mid 19th century. That record, set by the 111th congress is 132 filibusters. Now that the Republicans are the majority in the House of Representatives, they are demanding that the Democratic controlled Senate vote on all the bills the House votes on.
The particular bill that Republicans are demanding the Senate to vote on is their measure to repeal the Health Care Reform bill, the single most important piece of legislation instituted by Democrats. The House of Representatives voted last week to repeal the bill by a vote of 245 to 189, and now Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader is promising “No”, insisting that the Democratic Senate vote on the issue and do the same. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated he has no interest in bringing this repeal issue to the Senate.
In a television appearance on Fox News yesterday, Mr. McConnell assured the viewers that he will make sure the Senate votes to take away their health care. When asked how he intends to override Harry Reid’s decision not to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, Mitch said;
“I’m not going to discuss how we’ll do it from a parliamentary point of view here. If that does not pass, and I don’t think anyone is optimistic that it will, we intend to go after this health care bill in every way that we can.”
As minority leader, Mitch McConnell cannot set the agenda for the Senate, but the belief among other congressional leaders is that the Republicans in the could offer the repeal bill as an amendment to another bill, thus, forcing the Senate to have the vote. Democratic Senator from Illinois Dick Durbin discussed this possibility;
“If some Republican senator wants to offer it as an amendment at some point, it’s possible they will. It’s possible we’ll face that vote. But having spoken to my members in the Democratic caucus, with Sen. Reid, we feel there’s still strong support for health care reform.”
The lies and scare tactics used by Republicans in the Health Care debate of 2009 have caused a split among the American people. In early polls, taken when the bill was being debated in congress, as much as 60% of the public believed the Republican propaganda against health care reform. But recent polls have shown a change in the public’s perception of the law. According to a recent Associated Press-GFK poll, only 1 out of 4 (25%) Americans are now asking for Republicans to repeal the bill. With poll numbers like these, Democrats are feeling optimistic that the bill will stand up against any amendment trick brought on by the senate. Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York appeared on CBS, and expressed his optimism;
“If the Republicans offer an amendment on the floor, then we will require them to vote on the individual protections in the bill that are very popular and that even some of the new Republicans House members have said they support. So in the end, their repeal bill is going to be so full of holes it looks like Swiss cheese.”
Individual parts of the bill that have shown strong support among the American people include: allowing young adults to remain on parent’s policy until the age of 26; ending pre-existing conditions for children that went into effect in 2010; ending pre-existing condition for adults that will go into effect in 2014; helping to close the “donut hole” for seniors needing prescription drugs; providing preventative care screenings among others.
The individual mandate in the bill, which requires everyone to obtain health care insurance, is the major contention with the American people. Democrats argue that this mandate is necessary to ensure the improved level of care required in the bill.
If Republicans succeed in getting Senate Democrats to vote on an amended bill with health care repeal as an attachment, the bill will need 60 votes to pass. Democrats control the Senate with 53 votes, with Republicans in the minority with 47. If 13 Democrats crossed party lines and voted with Republicans to achieve the needed 60, the repeal bill then goes to President Obama’s desk for a signature. The President, however, has promised to veto any repeal bill that makes its way to the White House.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
