Sheriff Garcia: Great challenges, great leaders

By Sheriff Adrian Garcia | June 16, 2013 | Updated: June 16, 2013 10:51pm

Photo By Harris County Sheriff Office

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia (second from left) at the White House in Washington, Tuesday, June 11, 2013, during President Barack Obama’s speech about immigration reform in the East Room. Photo: Harris County Sheriff Office

Photo: Mayra Beltran, Houston Chronicle

I was honored to join President Obama a few days ago to hear, along with leaders from across the country, the progress being made toward common sense immigration reform. I have been an advocate of fixing our broken immigration system because otherwise it will continue to hamper the economy and hinder public safety as businesses and workers remain underground and crime victims fear the police.

On stage at the White House, I was overwhelmed by the personal ironies of the moment. My older brothers and sister were brought to this country permanently by a father who had been a "bracero" (guest worker) in the 1940s in California so he could earn enough money to start a family back home in Mexico.

My father had waited in line to get permission to re-enter the United States with that family. The first thing he did after crossing the international bridge into Texas was stop his station wagon and have everyone get out and kneel on the side of the road for a prayer – a prayer that one of my big brothers says sounded like our national anthem. He recalls my dad saying, "Dear God, thank you for the opportunity to come to this great country! We will work hard and give everything back to this country that it can possibly give us, and we will be good citizens and obey the laws. Amen!"

Soon afterward, I was born in Houston. And eventually I would become the leader of the third largest sheriff’s office in the country. For me, a product of an immigrant family that did its share of back-breaking work, the experience of being a part of the discussion about immigration at the White House was humbling, to say the least.

By making improvements in several areas, the reforms proposed by the president and a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight address the American reality that is quite different from the one my father and mother faced several decades ago.

Millions of people who entered the greatest nation in the world without permission or stayed past their visa expiration date have become an indispensable segment of our society, paying more in taxes than the value of any services they receive and providing the momentum for economic prosperity. Reform would empower the children who were brought here by caring parents in search of opportunity for the next generation. As students, many of these so-called DREAMers are demonstrating a brilliance that would serve our country well.

Reform would make an additional $6 billion investment in border security – a real public safety commitment.

The bill would also have the government work with the business community to strengthen the computerized employment verification system known as "E-Verify" as well as provide again for an effective guest worker program.

The bill would install a stringent process for those who wish to become citizens of this great country after coming here without documentation. President Obama did caution that the process would not be fast or easy – nor should it be.

I applaud the bipartisan leadership that has gotten us to this point. Although it has been said that "politics makes strange bedfellows," I would rather say that we are witnessing proof that great leaders emerge in times of great challenges without regard to party lines.

President Reagan was such a leader on this issue, as was President George W. Bush. And so I say to Congress: Be like Reagan, be like Bush, be like Obama, and support common-sense reform.

Adrian Garcia is sheriff of Harris County.

 

by: Katherine Haenschen

Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 03:44 PM CDT

Rick Perry really has it in for the women of Texas this week.

As if his efforts to all-but-ban abortion in Texas weren’t enough, now Rick Perry has vetoed the Texas version of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have made clear that women have the right to sue over gender-based pay discrimination and extend the time for that suit to 180 days after the last discriminatory check.

This law was deemed necessary for Texas women to seek legal redress in state court over gender-based pay discrimination. From Texas Employment Law Update:

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of the federal Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 extending the charge filing deadlines for certain pay discrimination claims should not be automatically applied to pay discrimination claims arising under state law.

Texas courts are refusing to recognize the federal Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act without an equivalent state law. This bill would have remedied that.

This is a major economic issue for Texas: if working women are paid less than men for the same day’s labor, then they’re being denied the economic opportunity to fully participate in society that they’ve earned. If working mothers are shortchanged on their paychecks, it hurts the entire family — and Texas school children have suffered enough at the hands of the Republican Legislature as it is.

Instead of giving Texas women and families the legal capability to address sex-based pay discrimination in all of our Texas courts, Rick Perry reminded us why he’s the worst governor in the history of Texas with his veto of this common sense legislation.

Below the jump, find out why the federal law isn’t necessarily enough here in Texas, and why our state needs its own legislation to make sure women have the right to seek redress for gender-based pay discrimination.

ADVERTISEMENT

Progress Texas has the details about why this bill was necessary in Texas.

The following bullet points are summarized from the bill analysis for HB 950:

• The "Fort Worth Court of Appeals ruled recently…that Lilly Ledbetter protections do not apply to state cases absent action by the legislature"
• The state law is needed to "provide uniformity between state and federal anti-discrimination laws so that employees and employers have consistent laws governing employment relations"
• Further, the law will "allow parties to proceed in a nearby state court, while at the same time avoid the increased expense of having to proceed in a federal court which may be far away"
• Finally, the Texas Supreme Court issued a decision on August 31, 2012 in Prairie View A&M v. Chatha, and made it clear that Texas law does not provide the protections of the Lilly Ledbetter Act

This is an unconscionable veto of a common sense bill that passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate.

Here in Texas, women make 82 cents on the dollar compared to men, which gives Texas the twelfth-lowest wage gap in the country, even with women’s work equal to four-fifths of that of men. Nationwide, women still make only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. Over the course of a woman’s career, that amounts to $430,000 in lost wages. The pay gap is even worse for women of color and in female-dominated industries.

Yes, there is a federal law that prevents sex-based pay discrimination, but every Texas woman who finds out that she’s being paid less than a man to do the same day’s work shouldn’t be forced to find a lawyer who will take her case to federal court. This law, which is already on the books in 42 other states, would have affirmed that Texas employers may not pay women less, and prevented courts in Texas from tossing out pay discrimination cases, as outlined above.

Senator Wendy Davis, who sponsored the bill in the State Senate, made the following statement at a press conference in response to the veto:

"The veto – combined with his call to add a number of controversial bills that would adversely affect women’s health – exhibits a concerted effort by the Governor to attack and erode women’s rights and quality of life. I think Texans everywhere are not just disappointed but shocked that Governor Perry has vetoed bipartisan legislation to make sure that Texans receive equal pay for equal work. Texas families all across our state whether they are supported by single mothers or by working mothers and fathers deserve to be paid fairly for the work that they do. By vetoing the Equal Pay for Equal Work bill, Governor Perry shows a callous disregard for the wages that are required to support Texas families."

Rick Perry is a disaster for Texas women and families on so many levels. This veto serves as a reminder that our governor cares little about the people he supposedly leads. Not content to wage war merely on women’s access to healthcare, now he’s determined to make it as difficult as possible for Texas women to seek redress for sex-based pay discrimination.

Rick Perry may think his party won’t mind this veto and that he’s got nothing to fear at the ballot box in 2014 or 2016. Texas women need to get ready to show him how wrong he is.

Update 4:14 pm

I wanted to clarify more about why the federal law is simply not enough for the women and families impacted by this senseless, patronizing veto.

Women — particularly single mothers and poor women earning an hourly wage — should not be forced to turn to the federal court system to address basic pay discrimination. It is problematic to suggest that all of the women in Texas on the receiving end of sex-based pay discrimination have the means or agency to find a federal lawyer who will take their case and argue it (potentially for free) until the woman prevails in her individual case.

How many grocery store checkers and secretaries and shop clerks and assembly line workers are going to have the means or ability to do that? A Texas law would have made it so much more straightforward and enforceable.

And let’s be clear, this isn’t just about lawsuits. It’s about preventing the practice of sex-based pay discrimination in the first place.

A Texas law would have made it much more risky for an employer to engage in pay discrimination by lowering the barriers to seeking redress. How many women are going to have the means and opportunity to take a case to Federal court in the first place?

The federal law is unfortunately not really an answer for the vast majority of impacted women and families here in Texas. There is such a huge difference between an employer seeing a record of lawsuits finding against pay discrimination in THIS STATE to curtail this behavior than a far-away federal law.

That’s why the Texas version of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was so important, and why Perry’s veto is so truly deplorable — it will just further enshrine the culture of pay discrimination by telling employers that the victims will have a hell of a time fighting back.

Washington news with a Texas accent Texas on the Potomac

 

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

(Manuel Balce Ceneta) Charles Schumer, one of eight senators seeking comprehensive immigration reform. (AP Photo)

 

 

Arizona Sen. John McCain and New York Sen. Charles Schumer lambasted Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s border control amendment on the Senate floor this afternoon as the chamber convened for the third day of debate on comprehensive immigration reform.

Cornyn leads the Republican pack in calling for tougher border enforcement through his RESULTS amendment, which would require the Department of Homeland Security to achieve full operational control of the country’s Southwest border with a 90 percent apprehension rate of undocumented migrants and enforce a biometric entry/exit system that prevents visa overstays.

Cornyn stormed out of the Senate midway through Schumer’s criticism of the amendment. Cornyn’s attempt to toughen border security requirements was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee, 12-6.

McCain, a member of the so-called “Gang of Eight,” admitted in his remarks that the border is not currently secure, but said he is “confident” in the existing bill’s border enforcement provisions. While he remained open to improvements upon the bill, he said certain amendments are “designed to kill” the bill – referring to Cornyn’s RESULTS amendment.

Schumer said Cornyn’s call for an additional 6,500 on-the-ground border personnel would cause the cost to go “through the roof” – he estimated as much as $25 billion — with the amendment delineating “no way to pay for it.” He said the current bill achieves historic levels of border security for a lower cost, setting “achievable and specific” goals by firming up E-Verify and an entry/exit system.

Schumer said a path to citizenship may not be in place for another 20 to 25 years under Cornyn’s amendment, and urged Cornyn to go “back to the drawing boards.”

“We cannot should not and will not tell those who have waited in the shadows for so long that they should wait for 25 years,” Schumer said. “That is unacceptable. We need to do both [border security and a path to citizenship].”

McCain questioned the source of the funding for the additional border personnel Cornyn requests in his amendment. Cornyn claimed the money would be reallocated from the $8.3-billion immigration reform trust fund created in the bill, but McCain pressed him as to which specific funds would be transferred.

“There is a finite amount of money that is authorized,” McCain countered, adding that it was “incredible” that Cornyn could suggest adding thousands of additional personnel at no additional cost. “It’s simple first grade mathematics.”

Debate is expected to continue indefinitely for the next few weeks. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid has not yet set a deadline for amendments to the bill.

 

Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr. 12:01 am

America has enemies. Not just abroad, but within our shores as well. And our domestic enemies, as it turns out, are MORE dangerous and destructive than the terrorists could ever hope to be. Because while the terrorists want to destroy us, the following people and their organizations are doing far more damage.

1. Roger Ailes: The President of Fox News keeps the right-wing mouth piece biased and unbalanced. He literally proposed a right-wing news network as a propaganda tool to use during the Nixon Administration. And now, Fox News makes every effort to slander Democrats, lie to the public, and support conservative groups, activists and politicians at all costs.

Want to tell Ailes what you think of him? Feel free to contact Fox News Channel by mail, phone, or email.

FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-301-3000
Web: www.foxnews.com

2. The Koch Brothers: Yes, there is more than one Koch brother, but rather than jotting down the same paragraph twice, it makes more sense to combine the two. Charles and David Koch are the owners of Koch Industries, a private oil and chemicals company. They have spent big money in elections and have pretty much bought and paid for all of Republicans that sit on the energy committee. They also have ties to The John Birch Society, of which their father was a founding member, and several other conservative think tanks and organizations including, Americans For Prosperity which David Koch leads as chairman, the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the Cato Institute. They helped create and fund the Tea Party and have been very influential in the watering down of environmental laws and the destruction of unions. If you really want to see the scope of their influence look at what is happening in Wisconsin and in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I know you must be dying to contact Koch Industries to give them your opinion, so here’s how you can do that.

Koch Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2256
Wichita, KS 67201-2256
Phone:316-828-5500
Fax:316-828-5739
info@kochind.com

3. Dick Armey: His FreedomWorks organization helped to create the Tea Party and he has worked closely with the Koch brothers. Armey’s organization seeks to deregulate and tear down reform. He opposed health care reform and is largely responsible for hatred, paranoia and anti-government sentiments displayed at town halls during the health care debate.

FreedomWorks
400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001
Toll Free Phone: 1-888-564-6273
Local Phone: 202-783-3870
Fax: 202-942-7649

4. Tom Donohue: The US Chamber Of Commerce President gained a hell of a lot more power in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. The Chamber is the largest conservative lobbying group in the country. Representing big corporations more than small businesses, the Chamber opposed health care reform and Wall Street reform. The group is in favor of tearing down any and every law designed to protect the American worker. Donohue once stated that “there are legitimate values in outsourcing — not only jobs, but work….” and once told unemployed people in Ohio to “stop whining”. So, not only is he for deregulation, he supports job killing policies. That is a double dose of dangerous.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Main Number: 202-659-6000
Phone: 1-800-638-6582

5. Tony Perkins: Perkins is the President of the Family Research Council, a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Council opposes abortion for any reason, believes homosexuality should be against the law, believes in teaching “intelligent design” in schools, and believes global warming is a hoax. FRC was listed as a hate group after it falsely linked gay males to pedophilia. It basically lobbies the government to make laws that govern our personal and private lives. The Council is a Christian Right-wing organization that has a heavy influence on the Republican Party, hence all the abortion laws being proposed by them.

Family Research Council
801 G Street, NW
Washington DC 20001
Phone: 1-800-225-4008

6. Pat Robertson: Robertson founded the Christian Coalition in 1989 and claims to be non-partisan. The problem with this claim is that it’s a bunch of crap. The Christian Coalition passes out “voter guides” in churches and yet is granted tax exempt status. It clearly supports a conservative agenda and is associated with Christian fundamentalism. It is yet another group that believes that America should be a Christian state. They are a threat to the Constitution.

Mailing address:
Christian Coalition of America
PO Box 37030
Washington, DC 20013-7030
Phone: 202-479-6900

7. Edwin Feulner, Jr.: Feulner is the President of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that took a leading role in the conservative movement during the 1980′s and continues to push conservative ideals today. The Foundation has strong ties to many Republican politicians, and many Heritage personnel members have gone on to serve in senior governmental roles. Not only does it stand by supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich and corporations which led to the current economic crisis, it also believes in a strong defense which has become more and more expensive. Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program and is perhaps the most powerful public policy think tank on this list. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken money from the organization. It has far too much influence on American policy and that influence must be brought to an end.

The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington DC 20002-4999
Phone: 202-546-4400

8. Arthur Thompson: Thompson leads the radical right-wing John Birch Society, which is yet another organization that has Koch family connections. Founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, Jr., the John Birch Society is an anti-communism group that has pretty much denounced every liberal person and policy as socialist. It opposes the Civil Rights Act, the United Nations, and believes in immigration reduction. It aims to dismantle the Federal Reserve System and wants to return to the gold standard. The group is a sponsor of CPAC and is no longer exiled from the mainstream. Another interesting fact is that Fred Koch, father of the aforementioned Koch brothers, was a founding member.

John Birch Society
770 N. Westhill Blvd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54914
Phone: 920-749-3780

9. Rupert Murdoch: Known as “the man who owns the news”, Murdoch controls a vast media empire around the world including Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal here in America. Advertising his media outlets as “fair and balanced” Murdoch and his News Corporation relentlessly push conservative talking points and provide campaign donations to many Republicans running for various positions. News Corporation now has to answer for hacking cell phones and impeding investigations. Long the mouthpiece for Republican propaganda, Murdoch is a threat to Freedom of the Press and the foundations that keep America free.

If you want to contact News Corporation and tell them what you think of them, here is their contact information.

News Corporation
1211 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
Phone: 212-852-7000
Web: www.newscorp.com

10. Grover Norquist: Norquist is an especially dangerous individual. In fact, at the moment, he has the most influence on Republican congressmen. Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy and Norquist and his group, Americans For Tax Reform, have made sure Republicans continue to do so. 235 members of the House and 41 Senators signed the Norquist pledge to not raise taxes and now our economic future hangs in the balance. Norquist is basically calling the shots and holding America hostage on behalf of the rich. And he isn’t even an elected official.

Americans for Tax Reform
722 12th Street, NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Office: 202-785-0266
Fax: 202-785-0261

11. David Bossie: Citizens United isn’t just a bad Supreme Court ruling. Citizens United is the conservative organization that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of in 2010. Founded in 1988, located near Capitol Hill, and led by President and Chairman David Bossie, Citizens United’s goals include withdrawal from the United Nations, and defeat of campaign finance laws, among others. They also produce “documentaries” that serve the conservative agenda. The group is mostly a threat because of their fight to allow corporate ownership of elections. The Koch brothers, and many conservative think tanks and organizations have flooded elections with cash since the ruling. The Supreme Court decision alone is enough to put this dangerous organization and Bossie on the list.

Citizens United
1006 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003
Office: (202) 547-5420
Fax: (202) 547-5421

12. Tim LaHaye and Kenneth Cribb: Once again, you’ll notice that two people occupy this spot. After some thought, I decided this was necessary to avoid repetition. Tim Lahaye founded, and Kenneth Cribb is the current President of, the Council for National Policy. The CNP is a conservative organization for social conservative activists. Described by The New York Times as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” the organization is perhaps the most powerful group on this list. Members include many who are already on this list such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, and Edwin Feulner Jr. What makes this group particularly dangerous is that they support theocracy and Dominionism as national policy. They are also incredibly secretive and that’s scary all by itself.

CNP is apparently so secret that no address or phone number is available, so you’ll have to email them.
info@cfnp.org

13. Steven J. Law: Law is President and CEO of American Crossroads, a conservative organization that has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars to defend and elect Republican candidates to federal office, and was very active in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Basically, Law and his group are listed because they have taken advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the most since the ruling. The Kochs and Karl Rove have connections with the group and are a major reason why the House is under GOP control.

American Crossroads
P.O. Box 34413
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: ( 202) 559-6428. info@americancrossroads.org

14. James Dobson: Dobson is the Family Talk radio personality and Family Research Council founder that contributes greatly to all the hate we see from conservatives. A frequent guest on Fox News, he is perhaps the most influential religious leader on the Christian-Right even though he has never been ordained. Dobson believes that women should only focus on mothering (and probably cooking too) and is totally against gay rights. He supports private schools and special tax privileges for religious schools. He opposes sex education and only supports abstinence as the only technique for pregnancy prevention. Dobson is on this list because he is the one that began all of the anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-education speeches that are now commonplace in the Republican Party.

Family Talk Radio
540 Elkton Drive
Suite 201
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Phone: 877-732-6825

15. Phyllis Schlafly: She is the only woman on this list. Undoubtedly, you may have thought that Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin would be, but they are not. I consider Palin and Bachmann mere pawns compared to Schlafly. As founder and President of the Eagle Forum, Schlafly opposes feminism and equal rights for women. Eagle Forum promotes a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-sex education, and anti-vaccination agenda that has contributed to the current wave of social conservative extremism in the Republican Party. She believes women should remain in the home and that there is no such things as marital rape. She is certainly the most influential woman in right-wing activism and as such, the most dangerous one too.

Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909 eagle@eagleforum.org

16. David Keene: Up to now David Keene led the American Conservative Union, which is the oldest operating conservative lobbying organization in the country. The ACU runs the event known as CPAC and spends money on lobbying and political campaigns. Keene is still the current President of the National Rifle Association. Which is also a strong lobbying group that is virtually an arm of the Republican Party that glorifies guns and believes that people should be able to carry guns anywhere they go, even near the President of the United States. Keene is mostly on this list because of the NRA. The NRA used to actually serve a valid purpose but has since become a pro-Republican political organization that has mixed guns and politics. It makes them a danger to the political process.

The American Conservative Union
1007 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-836-8602
Fax: 703-836-8606

National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 1-800-672-3888

17. Tim Wildmon: Classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Family Association is headed by Tim Wildmon. AFA is just like every other conservative Christian group. It opposes abortion and gay rights, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. The group has actively boycotted just about any business that disagrees with them. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the AFA released a video in which “God” tells a student that students were killed in schools because God isn’t allowed in schools anymore and blamed the shootings on abortion and lack of prayer in schools. AFA is against all other religions and has an obsession with Christmas, often boycotting companies that do not mention Christmas in their advertising. AFA is here on this list because they represent one of the biggest threats to intellectual and personal freedom in America.

Want to boycott AFA? Send them a “friendly” letter.

American Family Association
P.O. Box 3206
Tupelo, MS 38803

18. David Barton: Despite not having any history or law credentials David Barton passes himself off as an expert in early American history. Most of his claims have been disputed and written off as false by real historians. Barton’s organization is Wallbuilders, which seeks to destroy one the basic foundations of American life: the separation of church and state. Barton’s mission is to revise history in an effort to turn America into a Christian state with Biblical law instituted as the law of the land. He has also created false quotes to justify his claims. Barton is a danger to the history of America, the Constitution, and education.

WallBuilders
PO Box 397
Aledo, TX 76008
Phone: 817-441-6044

19. Noble Ellington: American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC. The Council is basically a pay to play organization that carries the corporate agenda into state legislatures across the country. They work to end unions, end environmental and labor regulations, and end consumer protection laws. ALEC has been funded by the Koch brothers for two decades. The price for corporate participation is an ALEC membership fee of as much as $25,000. For that price, corporations are basically writing the legislation that you are currently seeing being proposed and implemented in Republican controlled states across the country.

American Legislative Exchange Council
1101 Vermont Ave. N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-466-3800
Fax: 202-466-3801

20. Edward H. Crane: Crane is the founder and current leader of the Cato Institute. While they have supported some liberal policies and claim to abhor neo-conservatives, the Cato Institute does push many objectives that should make everyone cringe. Among the various policies that Cato supports, privatizing Social Security, abolishing the minimum wage, abolishing affirmative action, and some environmental regulations, are among them. Of course, it’s understandable why Cato holds these positions considering Charles Koch is chairman of the board and a major funding source. Even Rupert Murdoch had a place on the board at one point which connects the Kochs and the right-wing media.

Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone: 202-842-0200
Fax: 202-842-3490

And there you have it. All of these people and their organizations pose a serious threat to the American people. They target women, senior citizens, minorities, homosexuals, non-Christians, and American workers. So which person or organization is the most dangerous to democracy? The common thread throughout the list is the Koch brothers. They have ties to many of the people and organizations on the list and share many of the same goals. If one were to remove the Koch brothers from the equation an important source of funding and leadership would be eliminated from the conservative sphere. The Koch brothers are by far the biggest threat to American values and institutions. The truly evil thing about this group is that NONE of these monsters are elected by the people. Yet they have more power and influence over our elected officials and system of law and government, than we do.

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/the-enemies-within-the-20-most-dangerous-conservatives-and-their-organizations/#ixzz2Vog8ZDXf

 

By PHILIP ELLIOTT | Associated Press – 17 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A self-described conservative Republican who is a manager in the Internal Revenue Service office that targeted tea party groups told investigators that he, not the White House, set the review in motion, the top Democrat on the House watchdog committee said Sunday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., released a partial transcript of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform interview with the unnamed manager in the IRS’ Cincinnati office. In it, the employee said the extra scrutiny for tea party groups’ tax exempt status was an effort to be consistent in reviewing applications and not driven by politics.

"He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way to what’s showing that the White House was not involved in this," Cummings said.

"Based upon everything I’ve seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on, to be frank with you," Cummings added.

In the five-hour interview conducted last week, the manager said one of his employees brought to him a tea party group’s application for tax exempt status. The manager said he recognized the political implications of the decision and flagged it for an office in Washington. Some Republicans have suggested that the Washington office initiated the close examination.

Republicans have complained the IRS targeted tea party groups because they are critical of Democrats and President Barack Obama. An internal IRS report found the agency improperly targeted the small-government advocates for additional scrutiny.

The uproar forced out the acting IRS chief and put the White House on the defensive against those who suggested Obama was using the government to go after political enemies.

Sunday’s release of yet another partial transcript was unlikely to quiet those critics.

"The American public wants to know why targeting occurred and who was involved," said oversight chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in statement released Sunday. "The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed today did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts. The only thing Ranking Member Cummings left clear in his comments today is that if it were up to him the investigation would be closed."

Oversight committee investigators have now interviewed at least five IRS employees about targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. Some employees said they believed that officials in Washington were directing their work but didn’t show any direct evidence to support their statements.

Cummings and Issa have been releasing portions of interviews that back up their assertions. But neither has released full transcripts, making it difficult to discern a complete story. Also, the portions released tend to offer employees’ views on what was happening, not definitive orders that directed them to scrutinize closely tea party applications.

Cummings declined to release the full transcript of the interview he posted on Democrats’ oversight website.

A Cummings spokeswoman, Jennifer Hoffman, declined to release the employees’ identity.

In the 15-page memo describing their interview with the manager, Democrats on the committee said they were withholding the employee’s name at the request of the IRS.

Cummings appeared on CNN’s "State of the Union" and CBS’ "Face the Nation."

 

Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 08:25 PM PDT

 

by kosFollow

attribution: REUTERS

Texas Republicans’ days are numbered.

Change is coming in the Lone Star State:

Enrollment data from the Texas Education Agency show that this school year Hispanic students reached 50.2 percent of Texas’ 4.9 million public school children, compared with nearly 49 percent last year.

Anglo students stopped being a majority several years ago and continue to decline in number.

Hispanic students in prekindergarten through high school now total 2,480,000 in Texas. The group is 90 percent of the student population in the El Paso region.

More:

Two of every three public school children in Texas are minorities, according to the data.

How Texas conservatives are fighting back:

Budget cuts to public education in light of a budget shortfall of up to $27 billion [...]

Budget shortfall? Funny, given California’s surplus. Maybe conservative governance isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be?

Battleground Texas is laying the foundation for the coming Texas Democratic majority. Given the demographics, it’s only a matter of time. And it’s making Texas conservatives so crazy they’re starting to make unforced errors:

Take Texas GOP chairman Steve Munisteri‘s efforts to drum up support for “Battlefield Dallas,” an attempt by Dallas Republicans to counter the Battleground Texas push. Munisteri flew up to Dallas for an event and said all the right things during his speech.

It was billed of “the first public meeting of Battlefield Dallas.”

But a Tea Party Republican made the headlines when he had this to say about GOP voter outreach efforts.

“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” Ken Emanuelson said.

Honesty is good, but we knew that stuff already. They don’t want black people to vote. Or brown people. Or Asians. Or single women. Or college students. Or anyone under 30. Or Democrats. Or anyone living in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and the border counties. In short, they don’t want anyone voting that doesn’t already agree with them. But of course, that’s un-American, so the only available alternative is secession.

But nope, they can’t leave the union. Texas’ electoral votes will look delicious in the Democratic column, and that’s coming sooner rather than later. And even sooner if Hillary runs.

 

By Steve Benen

- Mon Jun 3, 2013 8:00 AM EDT

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), no doubt frustrated his efforts to manufacture White House scandals have faltered, started to lose his composure on CNN yesterday. Perhaps more interesting was the response from a close ally to President Obama.

After lashing out at White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as a "paid liar" — an attack seemingly based on nothing — the California Republican argued without proof that top Obama administration officials were responsible for the IRS controversy. Under scrutiny, however, Issa’s argument quickly crumbled, relying on out-of-context quotes.

It was, however, this reaction from David Plouffe that caught my eye. In President Obama’s inner circle, few are as influential as Plouffe, who ran the Obama campaign in 2008 and served as a White House Senior Adviser to the president up until late January of this year. So when he’s calling the chairman on the House Oversight Committee "Mr. Grand Theft Auto" and a "suspected arsonist/insurance swindler," it reflects a striking escalation.

Unlike Issa’s rhetorical jabs, Plouffe’s brush-back pitch at least has the benefit of accuracy. As we discussed a few weeks ago, Issa, the man Republicans have tasked with leading investigations into alleged administration misdeeds, really has spent a fair amount of his adult life as a suspected criminal. This Ryan Lizza piece in the New Yorker from a couple of years ago remains relevant.

"Many politicians have committed indiscretions in earlier years: maybe they had an affair or hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. Issa, it turned out, had, among other things, been indicted for stealing a car, arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, and accused by former associates of burning down a building."

This is generally one of those truths the political world knows, but chooses not to talk about. It’s not a secret — Issa’s background is the subject of insider jokes and private chatter — but it’s considered impolite to broach the subject publicly.

Which makes Plouffe’s rhetorical shot all the more interesting.

---

For the record, Lizza’s report on Issa highlighted one run-in with the law after another, including arrests and indictments. There are also many suspected crimes — he’s accused of deliberately burning down a building and threatening a former employee with a gun — which did not lead to formal charges, but which nevertheless cast the congressman in a less-than-flattering light.

The New Yorker report also noted an incident in which Issa was in a car accident with a woman who needed to be hospitalized. He drove away before the police could arrive because, as he told the person he hit, he didn’t have time to wait. Issa didn’t face charges, but he was sued over the matter, and agreed to an out-of-court settlement.

And in case those angles weren’t quite enough, the same article also noted instances in which Issa appears to have lied about his background.

The congressman, for example, claimed to receive the "highest possible" ratings during his Army career, despite the fact that at one point he "received unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings and was transferred to a supply depot." Issa also claimed to have provided security for President Nixon in 1971, which wasn’t true, and said he won a national Entrepreneur of the Year award, but didn’t.

Perhaps he’s not the kind of guy who should casually throw around words like "liar."

But the key takeaway here is the fact that Plouffe was willing to go there in the first place, as if to say to Issa, "You want a fight over honesty and ethics? That’s a great idea." What’s more, also keep in mind that if Democrats seriously pursue this as a line of criticism, Issa and his allies will be cautious in pushing back because they’d prefer not to have this conversation at all — the last thing Republicans want now is a discussion about Issa’s scandalous background and whether he’s the best person available to lead investigations into others’ suspected wrongdoing.

 

Reuters | Posted: 05/31/2013 11:51 am EDT

By David Lawder and Margaret Chadbourn
WASHINGTON, May 31 (Reuters) – Lower hospital and nursing costs improved the budget outlook for the U.S. government’s healthcare program for the elderly over the past year, but the fortunes of the Social Security pension program have changed little, the programs’ trustees said on Friday.
Despite the improvement for Medicare, the trustees reiterated their longstanding view that neither program can meet projected long-term obligations without changes from Congress, and urged action as soon as possible.
They said the Social Security fund for retirees will become insolvent in 2033, the same as a projection made last year.
The main trust fund that supports the Medicare healthcare program will run out of money in 2026, two years later than last year’s forecast.
The benefits programs represent the two largest federal expenditures and account for about one-third of all U.S. fiscal outlays. The reports will feed into bitter arguments between Democrats and Republicans over how to reform the programs to keep them solvent and able to support the needs of the massive Baby Boom generation that is now starting to retire.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the reports support Democrats’ approach of protecting the basic structure of Social Security and Medicare, while reducing healthcare costs and asking wealthier seniors to contribute more.
While the Obama administration wants to work on bipartisan reforms to strengthen the programs’ financial footing, Lew said "changes to Social Security and that involve deep cuts in benefits or privatization will be unacceptable."
Republicans in the House of Representatives, meanwhile, have proposed massive long-term changes to Medicare that would effectively convert the popular fee-for-service program into a voucher-like system that provides a subsidy to seniors to buy private health insurance.
The report found that the improvement in the outlook for Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund was due to lower projected spending for most treatment categories, in line with a recent trend of lower healthcare costs.
It also projected that the implementation of key parts of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law next year will reduce costs by more than previously projected.

 

Reuters | Posted: 05/29/2013 7:16 pm EDT

 

Immigrants and activists march in Chicago calling for comprehensive immigration reform Wednesday, May 1, 2013. Thousands of marchers have made their way through downtown Chicago to a rally in support of easing the nation’s immigration laws. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

 

* Study finds immigrants pay billions more than they use
* Immigration policy changes could deplete program-researchers
* Immigrants generated $13.8 bln surplus in 2009
By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters) – Immigrants for years have paid far more into Medicare’s coffers than they have pulled out, effectively subsidizing rising healthcare payments to the aging U.S. population, a study released on Wednesday showed.
The analysis from Harvard Medical School showed immigrants generated a $13.8 billion surplus for the U.S. government healthcare program for the elderly in 2009, the most recent figures available.
From 2002 through 2009 immigrants posted a Medicare surplus of $115 billion, while the American-born population logged a deficit of $28 billion in contributions.
The Harvard study was posted in the June issue of the medical journal "Health Affairs." It counters impressions that immigrants put a strain on healthcare resources.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll in February showed that more than half of U.S. citizens think most unauthorized immigrants should be deported. Opponents said the immigrants take Americans’ jobs, drive down wages, and are a drain on benefits.
Researchers did not break down the Medicare contributions or use by legal and illegal immigrants and noted that the study may undercount contributions from so-called undocumented workers.
The Harvard researchers said their analysis offers the first look at immigrants’ contributions to Medicare and thus the potential impact any changes to U.S. immigration policies could have on the nation’s healthcare funding.
"Policies that reduce immigration would almost certainly weaken Medicare’s financial health, while an increasing flow of immigrants might bolster its sustainability," they wrote.
U.S. officials estimate that funds for the insurance program will run out in 2024 as health costs for aging Americans surpass revenues. Immigrants, for now, are paying heavily into a system they are not yet using, the analysis said.
Immigrants are more likely to be younger and of working age than the U.S.-born Americans who make up the bulk of those aged 65 and older and are thus eligible for the Medicare program, which is funded through workers’ payroll taxes.
Some immigrants might retire to their home country, or simply have less access to care, researchers said.
The analysis comes as lawmakers in Congress consider legislation to revamp the nation’s immigration policy.
The legislation includes addressing the roughly 11 million immigrants now in the country illegally but also how to structure legal immigration, including rising demand for workers at technology companies.
The researchers said the results support the argument that immigrants are a key component to sustaining popular government benefits like Medicare.
The bipartisan plan moving through the Senate includes a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the United States to transition to legal residency and then obtain permanent resident status.
Critics of such a "pathway" say it would reward those who come into the country illegally and add to the burden on the government, which is already struggling to find its financial footing.
The Harvard-led team said the pathway would have a dual impact on Medicare funding: in the short-term it would likely boost payroll tax collections from working immigrants, but over time it could also increase the number of immigrants eligible for Medicare and thus the cost of the program.
For now, the benefits of having a younger pool of workers, including immigrants, outweigh the potential future payouts, they said. The first wave of baby boomers is becoming eligible for Medicare and the nation’s low birth rate means there are fewer homegrown workers to pay for it. (Reporting by Susan Heavey; editing by Ros Krasny and Jim Loney)

Also on HuffPost:

• Reform Would Help Curb The Deficit

  Immigration reform would <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-08/business/38371503_1_previous-immigration-bills-immigration-reform-immigration-laws" target="_blank">reduce the federal deficit by $2.5 trillion</a> over the next 10 years, according to an April analysis by the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank.

• Expelling Immigrants Is Expensive

  Expelling the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States would cost $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/100449802" target="_blank">according to CNBC</a>. That’s because it costs the government more than $8,000 to deport each person.

• Reform Would Help Fix The Social Security Problem

  Immigration reform would help bolster Social Security because more legal workers would mean more people contributing payroll taxes to its trust fund, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130508/us-immigration/?utm_hp_ref=arts&ir=arts" target="_blank">according to an analysis from the Social Security administration</a>. Undocumented workers <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/immigration-reform-social-security_n_3103500.html" target="_blank">already contribute $15 billion per year</a> to Social Security.

• Immigrants Start Successful Businesses

  More than <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/worried-about-the-economy-then-pass-immigration-reform/" target="_blank">a quarter of technology and engineering firms</a> started between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born owner, according to the Washington Post. One <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/american-companies-founded-by-immigrants_n_3116172.html#slide=2357880" target="_blank">of the founders of Yahoo!</a>, Jerry Yang, is an immigrant from Taiwan.

• Reform Would Save $410 Billion Over The Next 10 Years

  The immigration reform bill proposed by the "gang of eight" senators would save <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/immigration-reform-save-billions_n_3280145.html?utm_hp_ref=business" target="_blank"> $410 billion over the next decade</a>, according to an analysis from Gordon Gray, the director of fiscal policy at the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. The savings would come largely from a boost in GDP resulting from undocumented immigrants gaining citizenship and in turn likely making more money.

• High-Tech Companies Say Reform Would Boost Their Bottom Line

  Companies like Microsoft and Google have said that immigration reform would help them by <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/01/29/facebook-microsoft-back-senate.html" target="_blank">allowing for more H1B visas</a>, a special kind of visa geared toward highly-skilled immigrants. The tech giants say they can’t find enough qualified people in the U.S. to fill their staffing needs.

• Reform Would Boost The Wages Of Native-Born Workers

  U.S.-born workers see between a 0.1 and 0.6 percent boost in wages on average with an increase in immigration, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/immigration-reform-workers_n_2583576.html" target="_blank">according to a January report from the Hamilton Project</a>, an economic policy initiative of the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. That’s because immigrant workers bring skills with them that complement those of native-born workers, leading to new jobs.

• Immigrants Are Entrepreneurial

  Immigrants are <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/13/economic-case-commonsense-immigration-reform" target="_blank">more than twice as likely</a> than native-born Americans to start new businesses, according to a White House report on immigration reform.

• Reform Would Boost GDP By More Than $1 Trillion Over 10 Years

  Immigration reform <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/100449802" target="_blank">would boost GDP by $1.5 trillion</a> — or about 1 percent — over 10 years, according to an estimate from UCLA professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda cited by CNBC.

• Immigrants Create Jobs

  Businesses owned by immigrants <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/13/economic-case-commonsense-immigration-reform" target="_blank">created 4.7 million jobs</a> in the U.S. in 2007, according to a White House report on immigration reform.

• Reform Would Bring In More Money Than It Costs In Benefits

  Though many critics of immigration reform argue against the cost of providing increased public benefits, analysts say higher spending is not a likely consequence. A Congressional Budget Analysis of George W. Bush’s 2007 immigration reform proposal found that it would cost the government $23 billion in more public services, but bring in $48 billion in revenue, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/worried-about-the-economy-then-

 

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon May 27, 2013 at 07:38 PM CDT

Sine do, sine don’t. Just moments after the House and Senate wrapped up their business, Governor Rick Perry called a special session to address the issue of redistricting.

So far, only redistricting is on the call, but other issues can be added at any time. At press time, the Senate had already gaveled back in and began debating rules for the session.

From Perry’s announcement:

The special session will consider the following issue:

Legislation which ratifies and adopts the interim redistricting plans ordered by the federal district court as the permanent plans for districts used to elect members of the Texas House of Representatives, Texas Senate and United States House of Representatives.

One problem: these interim maps were based on previous maps passed by the Legislature and found by the courts to be intentionally discriminatory against minorities.

Read more about what we know about the special session so far.

ADVERTISEMENT

Setting the Stage for Future Lawsuits

The key question in redistricting is whether the 2/3rds rule will apply in the Senate; if it does, then the 12 Democrats can block intentionally discriminatory maps from coming to the floor if they stick together.

Initially, Dewhurst told reporters that the 2/3rds rule would not be in effect for a special session. During tonight’s floor discussion, Senator Kirk Watson attempted to determine if that was indeed true.

Watson asked specifically about "blocker bills," which are meaningless, silly bills passed out of committee quickly to occupy the top spot on the calendar and thus force Senators to suspend the rules to bring up any other bills out of order, which requires 2/3rds of the Senators to vote for the suspension.

Dewhurst claimed that there would not be blocker bills and that there hadn’t for 10 years; Watson countered with actual historical examples of blocker bills in previous special sessions.

If there is no blocker bill, then there is no need for the 2/3rds rule to be used to bring a bill (such as redistricting) up for a floor vote.

Having a blocker bill is purely at the discretion of the Lt. Gov. Even if the entire Senate wanted to put one on the calendar, Dewhurst could remove it. And even if he did let a "blocker bill" come up, he could remove it later anyways.

WIthout a blocker bill, legislation is considered in the order it comes out of committee. Dewhurst indicated tonight that there will be no blocker bill. If that is the case, there will be no 2/3rds rule and a simple majority could pass a redistricting plan.

Much of this early questioning is about potential future redistricting litigation.

(That is, if we ever finish up the litigation we’ve got now.)

Watson’s request to clarify the 2/3rds rule and Ellis’s motion to get it in the record is in response to previous cases in which the Federal courts slammed Texas for departing from traditional procedural norms to force through a discriminatory map.

Should Dewhurst ignore the 2/3rds rule during the special session, that hands Democrats — who would be on the receiving end of any partisan redistricting malfeasance — a huge weapon to use in a future lawsuit against whatever discriminatory maps might pass without it.

The Maps Perry Wants Were Based on Discriminatory Intent

Sondra Haltom at Empower The Vote breaks it down:

The San Antonio court drew the interim maps as a temporary measure (that’s why they call them "interim") while waiting on a ruling from a three-judge federal panel in D.C. as to the compliance of the legislatively drawn maps with the Voting Rights Act. The D.C. panel later determined that the maps adopted by the Legislature were retrogressive (meaning they made minority voters worse off) and intentionally discriminatory against minority voters. You read that last part right. Not just accidentally discriminatory, discriminatory on purpose. In fact, the opinion states that the parties involved "have provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here."

Intentional discrimination was something the San Antonio court never heard evidence on or addressed because the D.C. court’s findings came after the San Antonio district court had already ordered the interim plans into effect for the 2012 elections. Additionally, the maps the San Antonio court drew still don’t reflect appropriate representation for minority voters, who made up 89% of Texas’ population growth in the last decade and are the reason Texas got 4 new Congressional districts in the first place.

So basically, the interim maps contain some of the same problems as the original maps the Legislature drew. For Abbott to think that the legislature can just adopt less-flawed maps to replace really-flawed maps and no one will challenge that is simply delusional and the members of the legislature shouldn’t buy into it.

If the state really wants fair maps, they need to basically start over with the census and draw maps that reflect the state’s population growth, which was predominantly due to an increase in Latino and African American Texans. A fair map would have many more Democratic districts in it, in both the Congressional and Legislative map.

That’s not what Perry called them back to do.

Perry wants the Lege to pass the interim maps, which were based on the original maps, just less bad.

What About Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

One other wrinkle in all of this comes out of Shelby County, Alabama where a SCOTUS case could threaten Section 5, which provides protections for minority voters in geographical entities with a history of racial discrimination. Section 5 requires preclearance in these covered jurisdictions. Texas is one such jurisdiction — and if anyone questions whether Section 5 of the VRA need still exist, just look at the maps drawn by the Republican supermajority Legislature in 2011 that were found to have discriminatory intent!

In any case, if the decision on Shelby County comes down during all of this, expect it to get messier. And if Section 5 is struck down after the Lege finishes the special, they might just be back to re-re-re-redistrict all over again.

What About Abortions or Guns?

Right now, only redistricting is in the call. Perry can add other issues as he pleases, though apparently he wants these discriminatory maps so bad that he won’t add other issues until redistricting is done.

The select redistricting committee will have a hearing on Thursday at 9am in the extension auditorium, so stay tuned. And in the meantime, get up to speed on special sessions via the Legislative Reference Library. Also, Michael Li is already out with a primer on redistricting and where we are now.