Currently viewing the tag: “bill”
All around the country, right-wing legislators are asking middle class Americans to pay for budget deficits caused mainly by a recession caused by Wall Street; they are attacking workers’ collective bargaining rights, which has provoked a huge Main Street Movement to fight back.
Now, a group of House Republicans is launching a new stealth attack against union workers. GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Tim Scott (SC), Scott Garrett (NJ), Dan Burton (IN), and Louie Gohmert (TX) have introduced H.R. 1135, which states that it is designed to “provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs.”
Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer:
The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.”
Yet removing entire families from eligibility while a single adult family member is striking would have a chilling effect on workers who are considering going on strike for better wages, benefits, or working conditions — something that is especially alarming in light of the fact that unions are one of the fundamental building blocks of the middle class that allow people to earn wages that keep them off food stamps.
With a record 42 million Americans on food stamps during these poor economic times, it appears that the right is simply looking for more ways to hurt working class Americans.
Colorado’s civil unions bill advanced today in the state Senate where it is expected to be approved upon its third and final reading. One Colorado writes us to caution that the real battle will be in the state House, where the GOP holds a slight majority and may attempt to stall the bill in committee.
House Republican leadership has promised a fair hearing, and we look forward to working with them throughout the legislative process. It’s critical that matters of great importance like civil unions be debated in the open. Issues like civil unions which have tremendous public support—including 72% of Coloradans and 61% of Republicans in the state—should be given an up-or-down vote by the entire House so that citizens may see where their representatives stand on this critical matter.
The bill should clear its final Senate hurdle this week.
Subscribe to Joe.My.God.![]()
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would protect the right of the public to photograph or videotape the public activities of police officers.
In an age when even the least expensive cell phones usually come equipped with cameras, supporters say the measure will provide greater transparency while protecting members of the public who record police actions from harassment and arrest.
“There have been numerous incidents…in which citizens have been harassed, threatened and arrested for recording what would seem to be public action by police officers,” state Sen. Martin Looney said at a legislative hearing this morning.
The HuffPo signs up a crime reporter. Dish fave, Radley Balko, is moving come May:
As you may know, AOL bought Huffington Post several months ago, and they’re hiring a ton of great people to build out a serious journalism program. I’ll be working with some really talented folks, like (former Agitator guest blogger) Ryan Grim, and Peter Goodman and Tim O’Brien, who came over from the New York Times. I’ll be covering the same beat I do now, only with a much bigger platform, and with the resources to delve into bigger, more in-depth projects.
So what does all this mean for the blog? Come May, The Agitator will be hosted over at Huffington Post. I’ll continue to blog here daily, and I’ve been assured that there will be no content restrictions or editorial control over what I post. The blog will likely look a little different (I imagine there will be more ads), and the comments section will probably be a bit more crowded, but otherwise, things here will stay the same. So I hope you’ll all keep reading.
Arizona’s ‘birther’ bill is back. Legislators passed a bill out of committee Tuesday that would make presidential candidates provide copies of their birth certificates in order to qualify for the ballot.
The bill, SB1157, would require presidential candidates to provide documentation “to prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidates age and prove that the candidate meets the eligibility and residency requirement for President of the United States as prescribed in Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States.” If the candidate cannot provide the necessary documentation, the Secretary of State is charged with withholding their name from being listed on the ballot.
The bill also stipulates that candidates provide a “long-form” birth certificate.
This is not the first time Republican State Rep. Judy Burges, who introduced the bill, has attempted to pass “birther” legislation. She introduced a similar amendment last year, which passed a vote in the House but then died in the state Senate.
At a hearing on Tuesday, Burges said the legislation wasn’t specific to the presidency — it would apply to all state and federal candidates in Arizona — and even claimed a need to keep illegal immigrants off the ballot.
“It’s essential that as candidates running for the office, we bring back the integrity to the office and that we show that we qualify to serve in the position that we are running for, whether it’s city council, whether it’s for the legislature, whether it’s for a statewide office or if it’s for the President of the United States,” she said.
Burges decided not to include an amendment that would have stopped the bill from going into effect until after the 2012 election. Under pressure from critics, legislators proposing a similar bill in New Hampshire recently used that strategy in an attempt to sidestep criticism. (The bill was ultimately defeated in committee, anyway.) Georgia lawmakers have also tweaked their presidential birth-certificate bill to delay its implementation until after the next election.
Arizona’s Committee on Government approved Burges’ bill with a 5-1 vote. State Rep. Eric Meyer (D), the sole legislator to vote no on the bill, asked Burges why she didn’t want to wait until after the next election. Her response? There’s never a good time to start.
“There’s always someone currently in office who we’re going to be asking to show their qualifications to run for office,” she said.
Meyer also voiced skepticism about the motivation behind the bill. “At the state level, if we want to require candidates to show certain things I think that’s fine,” he said. “I still think this stems in some way from the last election, the question over whether our president has a birth certificate that he can show, and it’s been well documented that he does.”
Speaking in support of the bill was Greater Phoenix Tea Party co-founder Kelly Townsend, who warned legislators not to shy away from passing bills because of controversy. “We are principled people who believe in the rule of law, and we are actively involved in all levels of government to establish accountability with our elected officials, including those seeking an elected office,” she said. “I’m concerned, however, that accountability has lost its priority and has been replaced with fears of bringing controversy upon our state.”
Arizona’s ‘birther’ bill is back. Legislators passed a bill out of committee Tuesday that would make presidential candidates provide copies of their birth certificates in order to qualify for the ballot.
The bill, SB1157, would require presidential candidates to provide documentation “to prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidates age and prove that the candidate meets the eligibility and residency requirement for President of the United States as prescribed in Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States.” If the candidate cannot provide the necessary documentation, the Secretary of State is charged with withholding their name from being listed on the ballot.
The bill also stipulates that candidates provide a “long-form” birth certificate.
This is not the first time Republican State Rep. Judy Burges, who introduced the bill, has attempted to pass “birther” legislation. She introduced a similar amendment last year, which passed a vote in the House but then died in the state Senate.
At a hearing on Tuesday, Burges said the legislation wasn’t specific to the presidency — it would apply to all state and federal candidates in Arizona — and even claimed a need to keep illegal immigrants off the ballot.
“It’s essential that as candidates running for the office, we bring back the integrity to the office and that we show that we qualify to serve in the position that we are running for, whether it’s city council, whether it’s for the legislature, whether it’s for a statewide office or if it’s for the President of the United States,” she said.
Burges decided not to include an amendment that would have stopped the bill from going into effect until after the 2012 election. Under pressure from critics, legislators proposing a similar bill in New Hampshire recently used that strategy in an attempt to sidestep criticism. (The bill was ultimately defeated in committee, anyway.) Georgia lawmakers have also tweaked their presidential birth-certificate bill to delay its implementation until after the next election.
Arizona’s Committee on Government approved Burges’ bill with a 5-1 vote. State Rep. Eric Meyer (D), the sole legislator to vote no on the bill, asked Burges why she didn’t want to wait until after the next election. Her response? There’s never a good time to start.
“There’s always someone currently in office who we’re going to be asking to show their qualifications to run for office,” she said.
Meyer also voiced skepticism about the motivation behind the bill. “At the state level, if we want to require candidates to show certain things I think that’s fine,” he said. “I still think this stems in some way from the last election, the question over whether our president has a birth certificate that he can show, and it’s been well documented that he does.”
Speaking in support of the bill was Greater Phoenix Tea Party co-founder Kelly Townsend, who warned legislators not to shy away from passing bills because of controversy. “We are principled people who believe in the rule of law, and we are actively involved in all levels of government to establish accountability with our elected officials, including those seeking an elected office,” she said. “I’m concerned, however, that accountability has lost its priority and has been replaced with fears of bringing controversy upon our state.”
Arizona’s ‘birther’ bill is back. Legislators passed a bill out of committee Tuesday that would make presidential candidates provide copies of their birth certificates in order to qualify for the ballot.
The bill, SB1157, would require presidential candidates to provide documentation “to prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidates age and prove that the candidate meets the eligibility and residency requirement for President of the United States as prescribed in Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States.” If the candidate cannot provide the necessary documentation, the Secretary of State is charged with withholding their name from being listed on the ballot.
The bill also stipulates that candidates provide a “long-form” birth certificate.
This is not the first time Republican State Rep. Judy Burges, who introduced the bill, has attempted to pass “birther” legislation. She introduced a similar amendment last year, which passed a vote in the House but then died in the state Senate.
At a hearing on Tuesday, Burges said the legislation wasn’t specific to the presidency — it would apply to all state and federal candidates in Arizona — and even claimed a need to keep illegal immigrants off the ballot.
“It’s essential that as candidates running for the office, we bring back the integrity to the office and that we show that we qualify to serve in the position that we are running for, whether it’s city council, whether it’s for the legislature, whether it’s for a statewide office or if it’s for the President of the United States,” she said.
Burges decided not to include an amendment that would have stopped the bill from going into effect until after the 2012 election. Under pressure from critics, legislators proposing a similar bill in New Hampshire recently used that strategy in an attempt to sidestep criticism. (The bill was ultimately defeated in committee, anyway.) Georgia lawmakers have also tweaked their presidential birth-certificate bill to delay its implementation until after the next election.
Arizona’s Committee on Government approved Burges’ bill with a 5-1 vote. State Rep. Eric Meyer (D), the sole legislator to vote no on the bill, asked Burges why she didn’t want to wait until after the next election. Her response? There’s never a good time to start.
“There’s always someone currently in office who we’re going to be asking to show their qualifications to run for office,” she said.
Meyer also voiced skepticism about the motivation behind the bill. “At the state level, if we want to require candidates to show certain things I think that’s fine,” he said. “I still think this stems in some way from the last election, the question over whether our president has a birth certificate that he can show, and it’s been well documented that he does.”
Speaking in support of the bill was Greater Phoenix Tea Party co-founder Kelly Townsend, who warned legislators not to shy away from passing bills because of controversy. “We are principled people who believe in the rule of law, and we are actively involved in all levels of government to establish accountability with our elected officials, including those seeking an elected office,” she said. “I’m concerned, however, that accountability has lost its priority and has been replaced with fears of bringing controversy upon our state.”
In the race to secure the most destructive state anti-abortion law, Arizona may leap ahead of South Dakota by seeking to tackle a problem that doesn’t exist. In a 41-18 vote last month, the House passed a bill to prohibit abortions sought because of the race or sex of the fetus or the race of the parent. Seeking to prevent “race- or sex-based discrimination against the unborn,” the bill would allow lawsuits and civil fines against “abortion providers who knowingly provide such abortions.”
On Monday, the Arizona Senate passed bill on a 21-5 vote. But unsatisfied with civil fines, the Senate upped the ante by “adding provisions which could send doctors and others involved in these acts to prison.” Now, the bill, which is headed to Gov. Jan Brewer (R), will ensure that any doctor or employees of clinics like Planned Parenthood that terminates a pregnancy based on race or gender would face 3.5 years in jail:
HB 2443 does more than make criminals out of doctors who terminate a pregnancy knowing the woman’s reason is to select the race or gender of the child. It also imposes criminal penalties on anyone who solicits or accepts funds to finance abortions based on race or sex.
Violators would face a presumptive prison term of 3.5 years.
That latter provision is aimed at Planned Parenthood. Proponents of the measure, citing undercover videos, say organization representatives have taken money from individuals interested in limiting births to African American women.
Arizona’s bill is modeled after U.S. Rep. Trent Franks’ (R-AZ) Susan B. Anthony Frederick Douglass Prenatal Discrimination Act, or “Predna” Act, which would insert criminal penalties for race- or sex-based abortions into the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hoping to “blow a fatal hole in Roe v. Wade,” Franks said that his bill “establishes that unborn children are persons, too.” But Arizona may succeed before Franks gets the chance. The bill is headed to Brewer’s desk possibly by the end of the month and Brewer “has signed every measure restricting abortion that has been sent to her.”
Today a civil unions bill was introduced in the Delaware Senate. The Human Rights Campaign reports via press release:
“Today, members of the Delaware Senate have put forth a solid plan for providing critical benefits to same-sex couples and their children,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Now is the time to treat all Delaware families with equality and we call on the Delaware legislature to swiftly pass the civil unions bill.” “EQDE is proud to have worked with the sponsors of this bill to get to today,” said Equality Delaware President Lisa Goodman. “We believe that the time has come in Delaware for civil unions and that this bill will become law this year.” SB 30, was introduced by Senator David Sokola & Representative Melanie George. The bill would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions giving them all of the rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage under state law, but would not allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Religious institutions may choose not to solemnize civil unions.
Seven states presently offer some version of civil unions: California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Illinois and Hawaii. Civil unions laws in the latter two states have not yet gone into effect.
Subscribe to Joe.My.God.![]()
