Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) writing in The Huffington Post:

As a long-time admirer of Warren Buffett, I held up leaving for work earlier this week to hear him on Morning Joe. He concluded his optimism on the economy by exclaiming: "America works!" I'm sure he meant the people of America work, which makes the country work. But Buffett pinpoints our trouble -- America's money works in China which causes America's people unable to find work in America. Corporate America off-shores work or its production and jobs like gangbusters to China. And today's report of an anemic production of 41,000 jobs in the private sector last month proves the point.

The recession began in December 2007. Now, after trillions of dollars of stimulation in the past two and a half years, the private sector is only creating 41,000 jobs a month. Something else is wrong. And what's wrong with the economy is that Corporate America off-shores its jobs as fast as it can. Three years ago, Princeton economist Alan Blinder, estimated that over ten years we would be losing on an average of three to four million jobs a year to off-shoring. But Blinder is the only economist who mentions the problem of losing our economy. Paul Krugman and the rest of the economists keep calling for stimulation. And stimulation is spent. President George W. Bush and the Federal Reserve stimulated the economy $7.5 trillion in eight years. Household debt increased $7 trillion during the same eight years so that by the time President Obama stimulated the economy had been stimulated $14.5 trillion and we were losing 779,000 jobs a month. President Obama stimulated the economy last year $1 trillion, $885 billion, and, with four months left in this fiscal year, we have already borrowed and stimulated the economy $1 trillion, $148 billion (6/4/10).

We keep bailing the economy boat with stimulation and fail to plug the off-shore hole in the bottom. Plugging the off-shore hole is kept "top secret." Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and the financial houses, the big banks, and now Corporate America, oppose plugging this off-shore hole because that would stop the guaranteed and lucrative profits in China. If the President and Congress changed our tax laws and enforced our trade laws to make it profitable to produce in the United States, the incentive to off-shore would be destroyed.

For example, the President and Congress could eliminate the corporate tax and replace it with a 2% VAT by Labor Day and receive more revenues. Corporate America producing in China has a 17% VAT rebated at export and pays no tax on its imports to the United States, whereas, Corporate America producing in the United States pays an average of 27% corporate tax plus a 17% VAT when its export reaches Hong Kong, for a total of 44%. The 2% VAT would eliminate the 44% incentive to off-shore to China. Producing in China, Corporate America receives only 49% of the profit, but that 49% is guaranteed with no labor problems, health or legacy costs, no safety or environmental costs. The CEO back on Sixth Avenue in New York can have a quality control manager in China, and checking on production daily with the internet, the CEO has time for a round of golf. The President and Congress are kept quiet about the off-shoring with campaign contributions.

President Obama has no experience whatever in trade or globalization. Globalization is nothing more than a trade war with production looking for a country cheaper to produce. Since everything can be produced everywhere, the economist would have us believe that all the United States can do is hunker down and equalize our labor, pay, safety and environmental regulations, to meet the global competition. This is the race to the bottom, and, unfortunately, the labor leadership goes along by continually calling for more free trade agreements to protect labor and the environment. We ought to learn by now that the free trade agreements only protect Corporate America's investment. Labor hunkers down with pay cuts and downsizing as if nothing can be done. All we need to do is change our tax laws and enforce our trade laws to protect domestic production and the environment.

I have worked with corporate America to enforce our trade laws that protect domestic production, jobs, safety, and the environment. Our efforts in the Congress passed by both Houses were vetoed by both Republican and Democratic presidents at the behest of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, both run by the big banks making a majority of their money outside of the United States. But after NAFTA with Mexico and China being admitted to the World Trade Organization, corporate America gave up its efforts in the Courts and Congress to enforce our trade laws and joined China in the trade war. Ironically, corporate America is making communism work.

After World War II, Japan started a trade war for market share by closing its market, subsidizing its manufacture, selling its export at cost, and making up the profit in the closed market. This put General Motors in bankruptcy and Toyota #1. China enlarged Japan's assault by opening its market for foreign technology and expertise, cutting the cost of its export with minimum labor, safety and environmental concerns. China developed the trade war into a war not just for trade but the entire economy -- investment, research, technology, development, production, jobs -- the economy. Today all nations fight fiercely in globalization. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Germany, France, etc., all have invaded the United States economy using their VAT tax advantage. For example, Germany, with its 19% VAT, recently announced the production of windmills in Charleston, S. C. With parts produced in Germany and exported at a 3% cost to Charleston, German production in the United States enjoys a 16% advantage over domestic production. Highballing the cost of producing parts in Germany, little income tax is paid for production of its windmills in the United States. Germany has established a beachhead to take over the energy jobs that the President and Congress keep saying we ought to develop.

We have lost and are losing more jobs to off-shoring than the recession. By the time President Bush stimulated, South Carolina had lost its textile industry, North Carolina its furniture industry, Michigan its automobile industry, Intel had left Silicone Valley for China, and Bill Gates had moved Microsoft research to China. But the President only moves to save jobs from the recession. And President Obama is our only hope. Under the Constitution, tax and trade measures must originate in the House of Representatives. No House member will introduce a tax or trade measure unless it's sanctioned by the White House. Moreover, Republican and Democratic House members are more concerned with campaign contributions rather than the economy. The President can plug the off-shoring hole and save the economy by the following:


1. Like President Nixon in 1971, President Obama should institute a 10% surcharge on imports to stop the deficits in the balance of trade. This would put the world on notice that the United States had come in from the cold in the trade war and would now compete in globalization.
2. Call for the Congress to eliminate the corporate tax and replace it with a 2% VAT.
3. Section 201 of our trade laws calls on the President to move with tariffs or import quotas when America production is endangered. Instead of enforcing Section 201, we waited for General Motors to go bankrupt, needing a bailout. Move with tariffs or import quotas on any endangered production.
4. We've got the troops, but our defense is endangered because of our reliance on foreign production for materiel and equipment to fight. The War Production Act of 1950 should be enforced to provide for the materiel and equipment necessary to our national defense. This would create millions of jobs.

If the President moves to create jobs by changing our tax laws or enforcing our trade laws, coming down on his head in opposition will be Wall Street, Corporate America and its entities, the Business Roundtable and the United States Chamber of Commerce, crying: "Free trade," "protectionism," "don't start a trade war." Wall Street and Corporate America want to keep profits in China flowing; keep the stock market up.

But President Obama is our only hope.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ernest-frederick-hollings/our-only-hope_b_601170.html

From The Daily Yonder

Agriculture and Energy Secretaries Tom Vilsack and Steven Chu write about the benefits of energy independence for rural America:

Last month, President Obama outlined a broad energy security plan designed to end America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. As the President noted, this is about strengthening national security, but it’s also about strengthening America’s economic security.

Rural communities – which have been hardest hit by job losses for decades – will perhaps have the most to gain from the transition to a clean energy economy. For example, the economic stimulus bill signed by the President last year has already doubled the pace of investment in wind turbines, creating thousands of construction jobs in rural America as wind farms come online across the country.

There is also an enormous opportunity for rural America as we dramatically increase the use of biofuels, ranging from corn ethanol to promising new technologies like cellulosic ethanol and other even more advanced forms of biofuel.

Our goal is to more than triple America’s biofuel production in the next twelve years, cutting oil imports by $41 billion. Instead of sending that $41 billion overseas, we can invest it right here in America. Instead of depending on oil fields in other countries, we’ll depend on farm fields in America’s heartland.

This is an ambitious target – 36 billion gallons by 2022 – and it will mean a growing market for agricultural producers. We will build on the tremendous growth over the past few years in the production of corn based ethanol and soy based biodiesel, fuels that already play a valuable role in reducing oil imports.
Kate Gabrielle

Moving forward, these corn and soy based fuels will continue to provide a source of wealth creation for rural communities. In addition, we are developing new forms of biofuel that will create an even brighter future and a bigger role for rural America.

Read full article at:
http://www.dailyyonder.com/when-secretaries-speak-rurals-role-energy/2010/05/28/2769

With a promise to return Florida’s government to the people, Lawton M. (Bud) Chiles III, a Tallahassee businessman who served until recently as President of the Lawton Chiles Foundation, today announced that he has entered the race to become Florida’s next governor. Chiles, 57, said that the influence of money has caused state government to break its bond with the people it was created to serve.

“I’m running for Governor to speak for a million Floridians who are out of work right now,” Chiles said. “I’m running to help nearly a million children who have no health care – and for the millions of people who, like me, believe Florida can and must do better by its families and communities.”

Chiles said that state government has “broken faith” with the people it was created to serve, and he pointed to contributions to candidates and parties as the reason.

“It’s big money versus big money and the people are left on the sidelines,” he said. “I refuse to play that game. I am in this race as an independent, beholden to no party. My campaign is all about bringing people together, not dividing folks.”

Not only will he refuse party money, Chiles added that he also will not accept contributions from political action committees (PACs) or large corporations- and is limiting contributions to $250.

As president of the Lawton Chiles Foundation – named in honor of his late father – Chiles has spent the last several months walking across the state, meeting with teachers, children’s advocates and local leaders. According to Chiles, the hard work and cooperation he witnessed made him realize that the communities ought to serve as a model for the state.

“I’ve seen firsthand that the answers to our most challenging problems are found right in our own communities,” Chiles said. “These collaborative efforts are working because people are coming together not as Democrats or Republicans, but as community leaders – to improve education, help foster kids, and end homelessness.”

Chiles said that his campaign will be focused on energizing the people of Florida who have been left out and whose voices haven’t been heard. He promised fast action on reforming campaign finance laws and making government more transparent to the people.

Chiles said he expects to continue his way across Florida, meeting with people in the communities and learning firsthand about their successes and challenges. A major campaign rally to kick off the campaign is scheduled for his hometown of Lakeland on June 12.

A leading Senate Democrat is proposing legislation to discourage outsourcing of U.S. jobs. I applaud Senator Schumer for his efforts to protect U.S. jobs and help save the middle class.

The New York Daily News reports:

Senator Chuck Schumer wants to tax companies 25 cents for every customer service call that's outsourced overseas.

Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed a bill yesterday that would slap the tax on companies that transfer calls from American area codes to foreign call centers.

"How many times do we hear of a company shutting down a facility in New York or elsewhere in the country and sending the jobs abroad? Almost daily," Schumer said.

The measure also would require telling U.S. customers that their call is being transferred - and to which country.

"1.6 billion calls are being transferred to call centers, often without the customer's knowledge," Schumer said.

Companies would be required to report their total customer service calls and the number relayed overseas.

India, Indonesia, Ireland, Canada, the Philippines and South Africa are countries popular with American companies looking to outsource call centers to cut costs.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/05/31/2010-05-31_reach_out_and_tax_outsource_calls_schumer.html#ixzz0pWVVn8Ly

The following is an executive summary of a report released by U.S. PIRG on the urgent need to rebuild America's infrastructure:

Over the last 50 years, America has built roads and bridges at a pace and scale that dwarfs most of the rest of the world. We’ve built a national highway network like no other, with more than 45,000 miles of interstate highway and 575,000 highway bridges.

Now, much of that system is showing its age – and as maintenance needs continue to grow, we are falling farther behind.

Across the nation, drivers face more than 90,000 miles of crumbling highways and more than 70,000 structurally deficient bridges. Neglected maintenance of roads and bridges acts as a constant drain on our economy and a scourge on our quality of life. Rough and rutted roads cause accidents, damage vehicles, trigger traffic jams that lead to countless hours of delay, and waste money Americans need for other expenses. On some occasions – such as the 2007 collapse of the I-35 bridge connecting Minneapolis – it can lead to profound tragedy.

Why are America’s roads and bridges in such terrible shape? And who or what is to blame?

The deterioration of our roads and bridges is no accident. Rather, it is the direct result of countless policy decisions that put other considerations ahead of the pressing need to preserve our investment in the highway system.

Political forces often undermine a strong commitment to maintenance: Members of Congress, state legislators and local politicians thrive on ribbon-cuttings. Powerful special interests push for new and bigger highways. Meanwhile, federal and state policies – which should provide strong guidance in the wise use of taxpayer dollars – often fail to achieve the proper balance between building new infrastructure and taking care of what we already have built.

To fix our roads and bridges, America first must fix our transportation policies. To counteract the tendencies to neglect repair and maintenance, we must adopt strong “fix-it first” rules that give priority to maintenance of our existing roads and bridges, set national goals for the condition of our transportation system, and hold state governments accountable for achieving results.

Road Work Ahead describes how America’s roads and bridges are in disrepair, bringing together a wide variety of statistics and sources with state-by-state analysis. It shows how special interest pressure tilts the playing field toward the construction of new and ever-wider highways at the expense of repair and maintenance.

U.S. transportation policy fails to properly emphasize highway and bridge maintenance, with federal transportation policies allocating vast amounts of money to the states with little direction and no accountability, and with Congressional earmarks further tilting spending away from maintenance.

State transportation funding policies are often similarly short-sighted, focusing on the creation of politically popular new highways rather than maintaining existing roads and bridges.

Spending more money on transportation won’t fix America’s roads and bridges without a top-to-bottom shift in funding priorities and policies. The report’s recommendations include ways to:

• Make highway and bridge maintenance a national priority.
• Reorganize federal highway programs to focus exclusively on either maintenance or new construction.

• Require states receiving federal aid to plan for future maintenance before building new roads.

• Measure performance the right way.

• Reward states for good performance on national objectives.

• Create fix-it-first policies in the states as well


In 2008, 63% of major roadways in urban areas – where 80% of Americans live and work – were determined to be in less than good shape.

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/transportation/transportation2/road-work-ahead-holding-government-accountable-for-fixing-americas-crumbling-roads-and-bridges

Webb Honored with “Andrew Jackson Presidential Award” for Commitment to Economic Fairness, Sound Principles of Governance

April 21, 2010

Washington, DC—Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has been awarded the “Andrew Jackson Presidential Award for Citizenship and Leadership.” Presented by the Ladies Hermitage Association, the award honors leaders who have “promoted the history and life of Andrew Jackson” and “who have demonstrated in their civic lives a dedication to the furtherance of our American democracy and to sound governance principles.”

Senator Webb ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006 on a platform of “Jacksonian Democracy”—that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base—committing to restore a basic level of economic fairness to the American people. For more than three years, his leadership in the Congress has upheld and embodied that commitment.

“I am struck by the multiple similarities when I think of President Jackson and Senator Webb,” said John Seigenthaler, award-winning reporter, editor, publisher and CEO for The Tennessean and founding editorial director of USA TODAY, when presenting the award. “They both were lawyers as well as warriors… Both of them served in Washington during times of intense partisanship. Neither of them will ever be remembered for giving sufferance to fools. Both were, and Jim Webb still is, committed to making sure that our government is true to those who come home from war in need of assistance.”

Senator Webb clearly articulated these priorities in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (“American workers have a chance to be heard,” November 15, 2006) and in his response to President George Bush’s 2007 State of the Union Address.

His first act in Congress was the introduction on his first day in office of a new GI Bill to provide service members and veterans of the post-9/11 era with comprehensive educational benefits similar to those provided to veterans of WWII. Since the bill became law in 2008, over 480,000 veterans have applied for their benefits to attend college or other post secondary programs. In order to further expand employment opportunities, Webb introduced the Adult Education and Economic Growth Act last year to improve adult education, job training, and other workforce programs. After American taxpayers bailed out the Wall Street firms who created the financial crisis, Senator Webb introduced the Taxpayer Fairness Act to place a one-time 50% tax on excessive bonuses paid by Wall Street banks and other firms that benefited from billions of taxpayer dollars in 2009.

In his acceptance speech, Senator Webb described how Jackson has inspired his approach to leadership today:

“When I think about Andrew Jackson, I am struck by the unique impact that he had on this country. His presidency was the first that did not come out of the landed English aristocracy in the South or the English American elite in New England. He was the first Scots-Irish president, the first “bottom up” president, and he had enormous challenges inside the existing political structure. Thomas Jefferson called him ‘dangerous’ and ‘unfit for office,’ and John Quincy Adams called him a ‘barbarian,’ and refused to attend his inauguration.

“This was an individual who sincerely and fiercely believed in protecting the working people—the people who carried the load of society. He faced down the forces that threatened the very fabric of our society. Scholars agree that the most important presidential veto in American history occurred when legislation creating the Second National Bank came before President Jackson. This legislation would have allowed a permanent aristocracy in America. Two-thirds of Congress agreed that this legislation should go through. Andrew Jackson knew that if he vetoed this legislation, they were going to try to veto him. But he did.

“In his 1832 veto message, Jackson said:
‘Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every person is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing favors to themselves--have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses.’

“This to me, is the most important articulation of the responsibilities of government leaders that I’ve ever read. The truth of that statement resounds today in numerous pieces of legislation we face in the United States Congress. The courage that it took to confront the forces of entrenched interests in order to challenge the conscience of all Americans also exists today. That is my duty. I continue in that tradition. That is the reason I so respect this great leader and also the reason I am so grateful to receive this award.”

Howard Kittell, President and CEO of the Hermitage, concluded, “The parallels between Andrew Jackson and Senator Jim Webb – their sound military judgment, no-nonsense, public-good approach to government, and commitment to democratic ideals—make Senator Webb the ideal choice for the 2010 Andrew Jackson Presidential Award.”

The Hermitage, the home of President Andrew Jackson, is one of the largest and most visited presidential homes in the United States.

WASHINGTON - "Right to Rent" is one of the most efficient and simple ways to help millions of families facing foreclosure remain in their homes, said national housing experts across the political spectrum in Congressional testimony earlier this week. The following day, a new "Right to Rent" bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. The Right to Rent concept was originated by Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. It would increase the bargaining power and security of homeowners by temporarily changing the rules on foreclosure and allowing homeowners to remain in their homes as renters for a substantial period or time. During this time, homeowners would pay the market rent for the home as determined by an independent assessment.

"Right to Rent immediately gives the homeowner security in their home. They will be allowed to stay there for a substantial period of time, allowing their children to stay in their schools and families to prepare for and plan their future moves," said Baker in his testimony on Wednesday. "Right to Rent also would make foreclosure much less attractive to investors. This gives investors more incentive to modify loans on their own, without the involvement of the government."

The following day, "The Right to Rent Act of 2010" was introduced by Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), which would allow homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed to stay in their homes at a fair market rent for up to five years. "The latest statistics on foreclosures and mortgage delinquency rates are an indication of the profound, historic crisis we face and the need for creative solutions like Right to Rent," said Rep. Grijalva.

In addition to progressive economists such as Baker and newspapers such as the New York Times, Right to Rent is endorsed by conservative economists such as Arnold Kling and Andrew Samwick. Kling, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, added his voice in support "Right to Rent" during the question period of Wednesday's Congressional hearing.

Republicans control the Florida House of Representatives making up roughly two-thirds of the lower chamber's membership. Nearly all Republican legislators in the state profess to be pro-life and many received endorsements from the Florida Right to Life Committee. Most of these same legislators voted on Thursday to eliminate prenatal care for expectant mothers and their unborn children. About 300 children will die each year because of this action. And the timing of these hypocrites - on the eve of Good Friday - couldn't have been better to showcase their moral depravity. Of course, silence from the Republican sock puppets at Florida Right to Life Committee and Life News.

WJHG-TV reports:

The Florida House of Representatives budget cuts $4 million for the Florida Association of Healthy Start Coalitions.

The organization oversees 31 statewide coalitions that help at-risk pregnant mothers receive proper medical care.

Supporters of the budget measure say county health departments will pick up the slack.

But, officials with the Bay-Gulf-Franklin chapter of Healthy Start say that's not the case. They say they use the state funds to raise about $32 million for their cause, and health departments can't solicit donations like that.

"We're talking about actually losing babies if this happens," said Trey Hutt, president of the Healthy Start Board of Directors. "I know that sounds dramatic, but about 300 infants, or fetuses, will die every year in the state of Florida if they cut this funding. "

Legislators will now meet in conference committee to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions. Hutt, and some legislators, hope they can eliminate the cut to Healthy Start during the reconciliation process.

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/89733827.html

WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) appluded a decision by President Obama to expand offshore production of oil and natural gas, saying, “The increased energy production will boost the country’s economic and national security, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

Dorgan, who is Chairman of the energy and water appropriations panel and the second-ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee, has led the charge to expand offshore energy development in a responsible way. He successfully included a provision in the bipartisan legislation approved by the Senate Energy Committee to open the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area – an area that holds billions of barrels of untapped oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas – to leasing.

“Our country desperately needs to take steps to increase our energy independence to improve our national security and our economic well-being,” said Dorgan. “We need a comprehensive approach to our energy development that includes investing in renewable energy, as well as expanding our development of traditional energy sources such as oil and natural gas.”

“Today’s proposal by the President shows the administration’s commitment to responsibly developing all our energy resources in a common-sense, balanced way,” added Dorgan. “The proposal will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in our domestic energy industry. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in Congress to move forward on new energy development. This announcement today, combined with the utilization of biofuels, implementation of new fuel economy standards, and moving towards the electrification of our transportation fleet, can significantly reduce our dependence on imported oil.”

Dorgan has long been a proponent of developing domestic sources of energy both offshore and onshore. Dorgan was instrumental in the re-assessment of the Bakken shale in North Dakota and Montana, which has attracted investment in the area’s oil resources. The Senator has also been a leader in support of maximizing the production of renewable energy such as wind, solar, and biomass.

There is a widespread misinformation campaign to distort the record of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) on gun rights. Nevadans, don't believe the lies of the tea party movement. There is no question that Senator Reid is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Harry Reid supports repeal of the gun ban in the District of Columbia and recently helped to pass legislation allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense in our national parks and wildlife refuges. Senator Reid has fought to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from junk lawsuits. In 2006, Reid supported an amendment to prevent gun confiscations during emergencies and went on record in favor of allowing commercial airline pilots to carry guns to protect their passengers and flight crews.

Check out the following link to a supportive statement from the National Rifle Association concerning Senator Reid's pro-gun voting record.
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2009/07/15/Reid_-_NRA_Letter.pdf

Nevada Outdoor Democrats provides an additonal documentation of Senator Reid's defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

Why is Harry Reid the most important lawmaker in the U.S. Senate for Sportsmen? And why did Reid received campaign contributions from both the Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund in 2004?

Answer: Because only Harry Reid has the stature and the independence to oppose lawmakers who would attack the rights held by law-abiding Nevada citizens. He has done it and he will keep on doing it. The man from Searchlight keeps his promises.

For Nevada Gun Owners, let's set the record straight on the AWB: In 1993 Senator Reid was a relative novice in the US Senate. Bill Clinton was a new Democratic President in the White House and Democrats were enjoying much success in their legislative agenda. As any new Senator might, Reid had hopes to move up through the Democratic ranks and establish his ability to represent Nevada through legislative leadership in the majority Democratic Senate. (Reid is now the Senate Minority Leader and the most powerful Nevada representative to ever serve in the U.S. Congress.) But in 1993 when an amendment to the Crime Bill was offered and cosponsored by leading Senate Democrats, Harry Reid voted NO. That amendment was the Assault Weapons Ban that was added to the Crime Bill by a vote of 56 to 43 (and 1 not voting).

Eight Democratic Senators voted NO against the AWB Amendment in 1993, and that NO vote included BOTH of Nevada's Democratic Senators - Reid and Bryan. Ten Republican Senators voted YES on the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Amendment in 1993 and attached it to the hugely popular Crime Bill that was passed into law in 1994 by a Senate vote of 95/4/1 that included 40 Republican Senators voting YES. This AWB ban terminated on September 13, 2004.

So before the lessons of the 1994 elections, before the AWB issue was proven a loser for Democrats across the nation, before the outrage that has now become a keystone of partisan politics for sportsmen, in 1993 Harry Reid voted NO to banning guns and YES for sportsmen's rights. Go here to see the Congressional record on that Amendment vote: Feinstein Amdt. No. 1152.

On March 22, 2004 a similar vote attached a renewal of the AWB to the most important legislation for the gun industry this decade: the gun liability bill S.1805. Senator Reid had given his support to this bill and had led Democrats to get enough votes to make the bill filibuster-proof in the Senate. This legislation would have prevented third party nuisance lawsuits when firearms were used illegally. U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors have to defend their lawful business actions against claims that they should be responsible for the illegal behavior of criminals who use firearms. That's like suing General Motors if a criminal robs a bank and drives off in a Chevy. It's not only a nuisance, it's nonsense, and it costs the industry millions that must eventually be passed on to sportsmen.

S.Amdt. 2637 would have renewed the AWB. Harry Reid and four other Democrats voted NO on the AWB renewal, but the amendment passed when eight Republican Senators, guided by President Bush's promise to sign the firearms ban if it was placed on his desk, voted yes to ten more years of gun banning. You can check the Congressional Record on the votes. Because the amendment to extend the AWB was successful, the tort reform that would have protected the lawful commerce of American gun manufactures and distributors lost. Reid once again voted for sportsmen's rights by voting NO on the amended bill.

Our rights as sportsmen and women are too important to give them over to any one political party. We can't win half the time and secure those rights.

Nevada Outdoor Democrats www.nodc.us

Let's defend the right to keep and bear arms by re-electing Harry Reid to the U.S. Senate.

Bart Stupak's support for health care reform is pro-life. Thousands of people die every year because of lack of health care coverage. Countries with national health care programs have greater longevity and lower abortion rates than the United States. So-called pro-life politicians such as former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida slashed funding for prenatal care while in office proving that these compassionate folks care only about the unborn with health insurance benefits.

Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak has gotten considerable flak from both the pro-life establishment (controlled by the Republican Party) and hard-line pro-choice types. Stupak isn't one of those pro-lifers who care only about the unborn with insurance. While Stupak has firm convictions on the matter of abortion, he is not a small-minded single issue type but rather cares deeply about social and economic justice for all people.

Bart Stupak makes a convincing argument that an executive order on stem cell research
signed by George Bush was just fine for the pro-life leadership but it isn't okay
with Obama issuing a E.O. on federal funding for abortion. Of course, it is
hardly a surprise that the pro-life establishment fails to give a Democrat
credit when it is due. Former Jimmy Carter never gets any recognition from the pro-life movement for signing the Hyde Amendment into law.

The following is a press release from Representative Stupak's office which gives additional background on the executive order signed by President Obama and refutes pro-life objections to it.

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) attended the executive order signing at the White House Wednesday afternoon as a guest of President Obama.

The president’s executive order maintains the Hyde language that states that no taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortion under the new health care reform legislation.

“President Obama made a commitment in September that the health care reform legislation would maintain current law of no public funding of abortion,” Stupak said. “Today the president signed an executive order and gave his ironclad commitment that Hyde language will be enforced in the health care reform bill. I was honored to attend today’s executive order signing, and am proud to have voted in favor of health care legislation that will provide 32 million uninsured Americans with access to affordable health care.”

The president’s executive order has full force of law and makes clear that current law of no public funding for abortion applies to H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The executive order states: “The act [the new health care reform legislation] maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.”

Without this executive order, a loophole in H.R. 3590 would have left the door open to federally funded abortion services in community health clinics.

Throughout history, executive orders have been an important means of implementing public policy.

In 2007, George W. Bush signed executive order 13435 restricting embryonic stem cell research – a pro-life policy that was applauded and welcomed by the pro-life community.

These same groups have been opposed to President Obama’s pro-life executive order.

Some have also criticized the general provisions section of Executive Order saying the language would prevent the Executive Order from having force of law in the courts.

Yet the language critics point to is standard language with any executive order, including President Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research.

Again, these same pro-life groups did not express concern over the language under President Bush, yet claim it is unacceptable under President Obama.

“This executive order protects the sanctity of life,” Stupak said. “It is disingenuous for pro-life groups who cheered President Bush’s embryonic stem cell Executive Order to now claim President Obama’s executive order maintaining the Hyde language in the health care reform bill is not worth the paper it is printed on.”

In addition to the executive order, Stupak engaged in a colloquy on the House floor with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to further enter into the record Congress’ intent that the Hyde provisions of no public funding for abortion will apply to the health care reform legislation.

“Together, the executive order and the colloquy, provide strong assurances that there will be no taxpayer dollars going toward abortion in the health care reform legislation,” Stupak said. “Today’s signing was the culmination of many months of hard work to pass legislation that provided our nation with much-needed health care reform while protecting the sanctity of life. I was proud to stand up for this principle today with my Democratic pro-life colleagues and President Obama as he signed this executive order.”

Congressman Stupak wrote an op-ed piece appearing in today's Washington Post which explains how the so-called "pro-lifers" simply wanted to use him to defeat the healthcare bill.

Stupak writes:

The true motives of many blogs and organizations claiming to be pro-life have become clear in recent days: to politicize life issues as a means to defeat health care reform. One group even sent an e-mail to supporters saying they are "working feverishly to stop this legislation from going forward."

The pro-life groups rallied behind me -- many without my knowledge or consent -- not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation.

Responding to those who contend that an executive order on federal funding for abortion is meaningless, Stupak stated:

"Throughout history, executive orders have carried the full force and effect of law and have served as an important means of implementing public policy. Perhaps the most famous executive order was the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. More recently, in 2007, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13435, restricting embryonic stem-cell research. This executive order protected the sanctity of life and was "applauded" and "welcomed" by pro-life advocates. That these same people would now claim that President Obama's executive order maintaining the sanctity of life is not worth the paper it is written on is disingenuous at best."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032602921.html

Wake up, followers of the National Right to Life Committee and other Republican front groups professing to represent pro-life concerns. You are being manipulated by the Republican Party and powerful corporate interests under the guise of protecting life. Your masters are the same people undermining family life in America by destroying our standard of living and shipping U.S. jobs overseas. The best way to combat abortion is to support a stronger safety net that will provide incentives for a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy to choose life.

I applaud Bart Stupak for having the courage of his convictions to stand up to extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

From TradeReform.Org

All 50 states have lost jobs to China
Written by Sara Haimowitz
Friday, 26 March 2010
The following was published in the March 27, 2010 edition of the EPI News:

As concern over the U.S.-China trade imbalance grows, a new paper by EPI's Senior International Economist Robert Scott finds that 2.4 million American jobs have been lost to China between 2001 and 2008, and that every state along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico has felt the impact.

Scott's paper, Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs, provides the first detailed analysis of the jobs that have been lost since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. It finds that, in addition to impacting every U.S. state, the job loss has touched every Congressional district in the country.

New Hampshire, California, Texas all suffer big losses
Scott's paper features a color-coded U.S. map illustrating where job loss has been the most severe, as well as several detailed charts that measure job loss by industry and by state. New Hampshire, which lost 16,300 jobs during the seven-year period covered by the study, suffered the largest job loss as a share of total employment. In terms of total jobs displaced, California was first, with 370,000 jobs lost, followed by Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida, which all lost more than 100,000 jobs.

In addition to the loss of jobs, the paper finds that U.S. workers who have kept their jobs have suffered depressed wages as a result of competition with lower-wage workers overseas. "The impact," the paper says, "has affected essentially all production workers with less than a four-year college degree - roughly 70% of the private-sector workforce, or about 100 million workers."

The paper received widespread media coverage throughout the United States, from the Sacramento Bee, to the Boston Herald, and The Toledo Blade. A Wall Street Journal story on the paper quoted Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) saying, "We've known for years that U.S. manufacturing's paying a heavy price for China's activities, but these figures exceeded even our worst expectations."

Scott's paper comes at a time of growing concern over Chinese currency manipulation, which has kept the cost of Chinese exports artificially low, making it increasingly difficult for U.S. manufacturers to compete. Unlike most other major currencies, the Chinese yuan does not fluctuate freely against the dollar. While the value of its currency should have increased as China exported more goods, it has instead stayed low, and China has aggressively acquired dollars to further depress the yuan's value.

Earlier this month, EPI hosted a panel on Currency Manipulation, where speakers including Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, stressed that a change of policy was needed to address an extremely depressed Chinese yuan, which was fueling massive trade deficits in the United States and Europe and threatening hopes of an economic recovery.

http://www.tradereform.org/content/view/2489/52/

SHREVEPORT, LA-The “Haynesville” production team, Three Penny Productions and
Creative State Design celebrated the official launch of the film’s Web site today. The site will help fans stay informed about the film, its subjects and about energy issues. “I really want this site to be a place where people can stay in touch with
‘Haynesville,’ but most importantly, I want the site to be a place where everyone can
keep up on the important energy issues in the film and the film’s subjects,” said Gregory Kallenberg, “Haynesville” director and one of its producers.
The launching of the film’s site will also feature the debut of the “Haynesville”
movie trailer.

“This is a film about three lives caught in the middle of the largest natural gas
discovery in the U.S. and maybe the world,” said Kallenberg. “I think Chris Lyon, the
editor, did an excellent job getting this big story and its elements into the trailer.”

The site features a filmmaker blog, a view into the “Haynesville” Twitter
feed (@HaynesvilleFilm) and news and views on national and international energy
issues.

“We want HaynesvilleMovie.com to be a gathering place for people who want to
support the film. We are a small, independently produced documentary with big
aspirations,” said Mark Bullard, the film’s producer. “We plan for this site to be the beginning of a grassroots effort that will take us to the highest heights of the documentary world.”

ABOUT “HAYNESVILLE”: “Haynesville” is a documentary following the discovery of
the United States’ largest natural gas field; a field named the “Haynesville Shale.” The film focuses on three people’s lives caught in the middle of the find and explores the Haynesville’s impact on their lives. The film also looks at this massive field from a national perspective, exploring the implications and huge potential of finding enough natural gas to run the U.S. for decades.

www.haynesvillethemovie.com