Posts Tagged: modernization


14
Feb 11

Kansas Liquor Laws Need Modernization

Jim Puff is a Kansas entrepreneur. He has been in the grocery store business for 43 years, and owns a convenience store, a cafe, a catering company and a grocery store in Alma, Kansas.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

So far, the opponents of the measure are most concerned about the chances that an increase in full-strength beer and liquor vendors will increase the likelihood that children can get access. But according to Kansas’ own Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, grocery and convenience stores have a better record of complying with laws restricting sales to minors (such as tobacco) than do liquor stores. Grocery and convenience stores have a long track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products.

In previous years, Kansas jobs and tax revenues have been traveling across state lines. A large percentage of Kansans live within driving distance to the Missouri border. Currently, many will cross the state line to take advantage of one-stop shopping in the Show-Me State, where grocery stores can sell wine and full-strength beer. And shoppers don’t stop there. Once they are in Missouri to buy groceries and alcohol, they are likely to buy other items such as gasoline and clothing. The jobs created to provide those products and services stay in Missouri, and the tax revenue from those sales go to Jefferson City, not Topeka.

Kansas is facing a budget deficit of $ 550 million, meaning that the newly elected governor and legislature will be looking everywhere to increase revenue and cut spending. According to a study by Dr. Art Hall, Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, School of Business, ending these restrictions would advance the goal of increased competitiveness and productivity, adding an estimated 15,367 jobs, $ 343.6 million in wages, and $ 72.5 million in state and local tax revenue, after full economic adjustment to the repealed restrictions.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in the United States, but some states have held on tightly to their blue laws. Blue laws success at discouraging drinking is spotty, but their success at discouraging entrepreneurship and chasing away jobs and tax revenue is certain. It’s time for Kansas to get with the times, and update laws for the benefit of hard working Kansans across the entire state. If Kansas wishes to better serve its citizens, implementing policies such as SB 54 is one step in the right direction.


Big Government


14
Feb 11

Kansas Liquor Laws Need Modernization

Jim Puff is a Kansas entrepreneur. He has been in the grocery store business for 43 years, and owns a convenience store, a cafe, a catering company and a grocery store in Alma, Kansas.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

So far, the opponents of the measure are most concerned about the chances that an increase in full-strength beer and liquor vendors will increase the likelihood that children can get access. But according to Kansas’ own Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, grocery and convenience stores have a better record of complying with laws restricting sales to minors (such as tobacco) than do liquor stores. Grocery and convenience stores have a long track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products.

In previous years, Kansas jobs and tax revenues have been traveling across state lines. A large percentage of Kansans live within driving distance to the Missouri border. Currently, many will cross the state line to take advantage of one-stop shopping in the Show-Me State, where grocery stores can sell wine and full-strength beer. And shoppers don’t stop there. Once they are in Missouri to buy groceries and alcohol, they are likely to buy other items such as gasoline and clothing. The jobs created to provide those products and services stay in Missouri, and the tax revenue from those sales go to Jefferson City, not Topeka.

Kansas is facing a budget deficit of $ 550 million, meaning that the newly elected governor and legislature will be looking everywhere to increase revenue and cut spending. According to a study by Dr. Art Hall, Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, School of Business, ending these restrictions would advance the goal of increased competitiveness and productivity, adding an estimated 15,367 jobs, $ 343.6 million in wages, and $ 72.5 million in state and local tax revenue, after full economic adjustment to the repealed restrictions.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in the United States, but some states have held on tightly to their blue laws. Blue laws success at discouraging drinking is spotty, but their success at discouraging entrepreneurship and chasing away jobs and tax revenue is certain. It’s time for Kansas to get with the times, and update laws for the benefit of hard working Kansans across the entire state. If Kansas wishes to better serve its citizens, implementing policies such as SB 54 is one step in the right direction.


Big Government


14
Feb 11

Kansas Liquor Laws Need Modernization

Jim Puff is a Kansas entrepreneur. He has been in the grocery store business for 43 years, and owns a convenience store, a cafe, a catering company and a grocery store in Alma, Kansas.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

So far, the opponents of the measure are most concerned about the chances that an increase in full-strength beer and liquor vendors will increase the likelihood that children can get access. But according to Kansas’ own Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, grocery and convenience stores have a better record of complying with laws restricting sales to minors (such as tobacco) than do liquor stores. Grocery and convenience stores have a long track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products.

In previous years, Kansas jobs and tax revenues have been traveling across state lines. A large percentage of Kansans live within driving distance to the Missouri border. Currently, many will cross the state line to take advantage of one-stop shopping in the Show-Me State, where grocery stores can sell wine and full-strength beer. And shoppers don’t stop there. Once they are in Missouri to buy groceries and alcohol, they are likely to buy other items such as gasoline and clothing. The jobs created to provide those products and services stay in Missouri, and the tax revenue from those sales go to Jefferson City, not Topeka.

Kansas is facing a budget deficit of $ 550 million, meaning that the newly elected governor and legislature will be looking everywhere to increase revenue and cut spending. According to a study by Dr. Art Hall, Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, School of Business, ending these restrictions would advance the goal of increased competitiveness and productivity, adding an estimated 15,367 jobs, $ 343.6 million in wages, and $ 72.5 million in state and local tax revenue, after full economic adjustment to the repealed restrictions.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in the United States, but some states have held on tightly to their blue laws. Blue laws success at discouraging drinking is spotty, but their success at discouraging entrepreneurship and chasing away jobs and tax revenue is certain. It’s time for Kansas to get with the times, and update laws for the benefit of hard working Kansans across the entire state. If Kansas wishes to better serve its citizens, implementing policies such as SB 54 is one step in the right direction.


Big Government


26
Jan 11

Chinese Military Modernization: Challenges and Opportunities for the United States

Guest post by Michael S. Chase

Michael S. Chase is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and an Associate Research Professor at the United States Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed in this article are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Naval War College, the U.S. Navy, or the U.S. Department of Defense.

Once dismissed as a “junkyard army,” the Chinese military is now impressing outside observers—and alarming China’s neighbors—with its growing air, naval, missile, space, and information warfare capabilities. In recent years, China has deployed increasingly potent capabilities, including modern surface ships, advanced submarines, fourth-generation fighter aircraft, and conventional cruise and ballistic missiles, including an anti-ship ballistic missile designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers. China is also enhancing its command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and its space and cyber warfare capabilities.

The internet leak of photos and videos unveiling China’s new J-20 stealth fighter and the test flight of the aircraft during Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ recent visit to China seemed intended to underscore the growing capability of China’s military. China’s eagerness to showcase the faster than expected development of the J-20—and its determination to send a message to the United States—also ensured that concerns about the implications of a more powerful Chinese military would loom large when President Hu Jintao arrived in Washington for a state visit this week.

China’s growing military capabilities, along with incidents such as Beijing’s anti-satellite test in January 2007 and its harassment of a U.S. surveillance ship in March 2009, are raising questions about whether an increasingly powerful China represents a threat to the U.S. and its allies. Fueling China’s accelerating military modernization—and the concerns of analysts who see China as an emerging competitor—is the rapid growth of their defense budget. Beijing’s increases in defense spending have enabled the People’s Liberation Army to develop more credible options for using force against Taiwan and countering U.S. military intervention.

Beyond Taiwan, PLA modernization is increasingly tied to China’s growing role on the world stage. As China’s economic and security interests become more global, the PLA’s roles and missions are evolving to contend with an increasingly diverse set of challenges. To fulfill these expanded missions, China’s leadership has tasked their military with enhancing its capabilities to participate in military operations other than war, such as the counter-piracy patrols that China’s navy has been conducting in the Gulf of Aden. Such activities are seen as important to protecting China’s growing global interests, but senior officers stress that their military’s core mission remains deterring and winning wars.

China continues to lag behind the United States military in many respects, but its new capabilities already present serious challenges to the security balance in the Asia-Pacific region. Beijing’s advances in cyber-warfare, anti-satellite weapons, submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten America’s regional bases, the aircraft carriers that have become symbols of U.S. presence and power projection, and the space assets and computer networks that support them.

The U.S. should counter these developments with a strategy to deter China from using force over Taiwan or in another regional dispute. Creating new operational concepts, developing cutting-edge information and electronic warfare capabilities, and strengthening the U.S. military’s existing edge in the undersea environment would ensure the credibility of such a deterrence strategy. The U.S. should also practice operating without the full range of cyber and space assets to show China that attacks against American computer networks and satellites would not cripple the U.S. military.

At the same time, attempts to strengthen deterrence must be calibrated to avoid inadvertently fueling China’s worst fears about U.S. strategic intentions. Because of China’s concern that the United States is determined to prevent its emergence as a great power through encirclement and containment, Washington should carefully weigh taking actions that could further exacerbate Chinese fears. To help prevent misunderstanding or miscalculation, the United States should continue to pursue dialogue with China on issues such as security on the Korean peninsula, space and cyber warfare, and strategic stability in the U.S.-China relationship. The United States should also seek to strengthen military cooperation with China in areas such as anti-piracy and humanitarian assistance operations. This week’s state visit presents an opportunity for Presidents Obama and Hu to lead the United States and China toward a more cooperative relationship, but mutual strategic suspicion and a complex mix of convergent and divergent interests suggest that neither side should expect the path forward to be an easy one.


The Moderate Voice


21
Dec 10

The Illusory Linkage Between Nuclear Modernization and New START

Obama and Medvedev sign new START

The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations recently published a summary of the continuing resolution (CR) that would allow continued government operations through March 4, 2011. The vote on the resolution is expected today as the current CR is set to expire. Senators should not fall for the promise of the so-called “modernization” funds proposed in the CR in exchange for their vote on the flawed New START nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russian Federation.

Senators should understand that no matter how they may wish it were so, their vote will not get them any long-term funding for nuclear modernization. There is no deal. Moreover, Senators should also not be intimidated by the threat to withdraw this money if New START is not approved by the Senate.

The CR adjusts the current rate of operations for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) weapons program to $ 7 billion, a $ 624 million increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation, in conjunction with New START. According to the draft language, the $ 624 million increase “shall be available only upon the Senate giving its advice and consent” to New START. This means that congressional appropriators do not support on its merits funding for nuclear modernization. It is also an explicit threat to pressure Republicans to vote for New START.

By threatening to withhold funding unless the treaty is ratified, this is playing crass politics with U.S. national security. Conditioning funding for nuclear program on New START is playing politics with our national security. If funds are needed for the most vital and sensitive military capability in the military’s arsenal, they should never be held hostage to a political deal. To bargain with the nation’s security is the antithesis of the appropriate behavior of the body charged to “provide for the common defense.” If the dollars are needed, they should be provided without conditions—period.

The treaty must stand on its own merits and be judged according to whether it is beneficial to U.S. security or not. The Administration has actually acknowledged this at one point: James Miller, the principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy, recently stated: “The Administration’s strong view is that the treaty makes sense on its own merits, and the Administration’s strong view is that additional funding for NNSA makes sense on its own merits. So no, we don’t support that linkage.”

The U.S. nuclear infrastructure certainly needs a comprehensive overhaul and is in need of urgent attention. The White House has proposed $ 85 billion in spending over the next decade, but this money is modest compared to the need. The funds proposed are anything but a commitment to modernize the nuclear arsenal. The Administration’s plan is overwhelmingly weighted in favor of sustainment or maintenance over modernization. Current White House policies bar steps that would lead to the development and procurement of “new nuclear warheads” or “capabilities” to meet new missions in the 21st century. There would be no modernization of warheads or delivery systems. To call this “modernization” is like saying that taking your car to Jiffy-Lube is “modernizing” the transportation network.

Furthermore, much of the proposed spending is in the out years beyond Obama’s term as President. The White House cannot make iron-clad guarantees on funding nuclear programs. Congress must still pass annual budgets.

Expecting funding for nuclear modernization in exchange for the passage of New START is simply misplaced. Senators can pretend that there is a deal, but the White House cannot make a long-term deal. By conditioning funding on passage of New START, congressional appropriators have made it clear that they don’t favor nuclear modernization on its merits. If they don’t cut funding this year, they will cut it next year.

On its face, voting for passage of this treaty based on the fantasy that there is a deal or that this offers a satisfactory solution to reverse the decline of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure is reprehensible and shortsighted. The treaty is seriously flawed, and U.S. national security interests demand that these flaws be adequately addressed before any final vote on the Senate floor.

In addition, the vote should not be scheduled during a short lame duck session. In a recent Heritage Foundation report, Matt Spalding, Ph.D., notes that never in the history of the United States has a lame duck Senate given its advice and consent and voted on a major treaty. The ratification of New START by a lame duck Senate would not only ignore the message sent by voters in November but also break a significant precedent, consistent with the principle of consent, maintained by Presidents and Congresses since the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933.

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


21
Dec 10

Linkage Between Nuclear Modernization and New START Inappropriate

The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations has recently published a summary of the continuing resolution (CR) that would allow continued government operations through March 4, 2011. The vote on the document is expected on December 21, as the current CR is set to expire the very same day. Senators should not fall for the promise of modernization money proposed in the CR in exchange for their vote on New START, a strategic offensive arms reductions treaty with the Russian Federation.

The CR adjusts the current rate of operations for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) weapons program to $ 7 billion, a $ 624 million increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation, in conjunction with New START. This is a quid pro quo to make sure that Republicans in the Senate are pressured, by millions in nuclear modernization monies, to vote for the ratification of New START.

The treaty must stand on its own merits and be judged according to whether it is beneficial to U.S. security or not. It is a good thing that the Administration has acknowledged this. James Miller, the principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy, recently stated: “The Administration’s strong view is that the treaty makes sense on its own merits, and the Administration’s strong view is that additional funding for NNSA makes sense on its own merits. So no, we don’t support that linkage.”

The U.S. nuclear infrastructure needs a comprehensive overhaul and is in need of urgent attention. The White House has proposed $ 85 billion in spending over the next decade, but this money is modest compared to the need. Furthermore, most of the money is proposed to be spent well beyond the President’s term. Importantly, the nuclear modernization plan ignores the fact that it is Congress that has the final say in formulating the budget, not the White House.

Trading U.S. nuclear modernization funding for a New START vote is a bad idea at any time and would set a dangerous precedent. The treaty is seriously flawed and needs to be fixed before the final vote on the Senate floor.

In addition, the vote should not be scheduled during a short lame duck session. In a recent Heritage Foundation report, Matt Spalding, Ph.D., notes that never in the history of the United States has a lame duck Senate given its advice and consent and voted on a major treaty. The ratification of New START by a lame duck Senate would not only ignore the message sent by voters in November but also break a significant precedent, consistent with the principle of consent, maintained by Presidents and Congresses since the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933.

Co-authored by Michaela Bendikova.

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


16
Dec 10

Rocket Modernization Roadmap Needed Before New START Vote

It is an obligation of the Congress to make sure that the United States will focus more on preservation of its strategic triad, especially its submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Maintaining the triad has been essential to the efficacy of the U.S. strategic deterrent for decades. A healthy solid rocket motor [...]
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


4
Dec 10

Following the Money on FDA Food Safety Modernization Act

The so-called FDA Food Safety Modernization Act isn’t just about Big Government taking a page out of Stalin’s playbook by consolidating control over the food supply. It’s also about federal politics as usual — that is, corrupt bureauweenies voting to favor those who stand to gain from intrusive legislation in return for cash payoffs. Maplight.org publishes the stats:

S510.jpg

If small farms fail to survive this latest wave of oppressive regulations, we can take solace that at least apparatchiks like Barbara Boxer and Al Franken made a tidy profit.

On a tip from Conan.

Moonbattery


18
Nov 10

New START, Nuclear Modernization, and Command and Control

style="float: right; margin-bottom: 1px; margin-left: 1px;"> href="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/minuteman.jpg"> class="alignnone size-full wp-image-46874" title="minuteman" src="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/minuteman.jpg" alt="" width="353" height="243" />

On October 24, at the Warren Air Force base in Wyoming, the United States Air Force lost communication with a sizeable portion of America’s nuclear deterrent: a squadron of 50 nuclear-armed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In the past, this type of disruption was rare and limited to individual missiles. The broad scale of this incident, however, resulted in one of the most serious and sizable ruptures in nuclear command and control in history.

The incident comes in the midst of the Obama Administration’s effort to push the U.S. Senate to grant its advice and consent to New START in the upcoming “ href="../?p=46666">lame duck” session of Congress. Given that each missile is responsible for covering a number of targets and that New START is set to further reduce the ICBM missile force, the gravity of the incident may have been exacerbated had the treaty been in effect. The 50 ICBMs that went down represent one-ninth of the U.S. ground-based ICBM arsenal. id="more-46872">

The Heritage Foundation recently hosted a href="http://www.heritage.org/Events/2010/11/New-START">panel discussion to address New START, a nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, nuclear modernization, and command and control. John Noonan, policy advisor at Foreign Policy Initiative and a former nuclear launch officer, defied official explanations regarding the communication failure by emphasizing that losing control and the ability to talk to your missiles “is a big deal.” He said that over the course of 300 alerts—24-hour shifts in the capsule—he saw this happen to only three or four missiles at most.

Among the main points delivered by the panel was the need for the U.S. to have a reliable command and control over of its nuclear weapons. The panel highlighted the most critical need regarding this reliability: modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Everything from the missiles and bombers to the technology at command and control remains archaic.

But age is not the only debilitating element to a credible U.S. deterrent. According to Tom Scheber, vice president of the National Institute for Public Policy, the once dynamic nuclear infrastructure has atrophied severely due to lack of funding from government-owned industries, commercial industries, and the Department of Defense infrastructure, which in turn has led to a brain drain that inhibits creative thought and innovation. Consequently, the nuclear infrastructure in the U.S. is in need of a major comprehensive overhaul.

Baker Spring, F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation, asked two important questions that should be addressed before the Senate can seriously consider ratifying New START:

  1. Is the Obama Administration behind the curve today to stop the nuclear atrophy? and
  2. Does the President’s 1251 report on nuclear modernization, as mandated by Section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010, include specific recommendations for the modernization of command and control?

The 1251 sets out a comprehensive plan to maintain delivery platforms; sustain a safe, secure, and reliable U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; and modernize the nuclear complex. However, it is href="../?p=46326">unclear to the public whether this report covers modernization of command and control systems.

The consensus among the panelists was that the atrophy of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure is a critical problem that needs urgent attention and adequate funding.

Matthew Foulger is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: href="http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm">http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm.

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


15
Nov 10

The Food Safety Modernization Act

The Senate is set to consider S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, in the next few days. I’ve not been following this legislation closely enough to say much about it yet, but if you’re looking to get some perspectives on the bill, Grist has an excellent round table featuring perspectives from a variety of food activists, writers and reformers.







Ezra Klein


8
Sep 10

Judiciary Committee hearing next week on ATF modernization bill

No worries?


This morning, I received a number of e-mails regarding a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for next Tuesday with the ambiguous title, “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process.”  It gives no other description except for the date and time (September 14, 10 ET in the Dirksen Building) and [...]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks