Kansas Democrats immigration plan targets employers

Kansas Rep. Ann Mah D-Topeka

From The Witchita Eagle http://www.kansas.com/, a proposal by Democrats in the Kansas Legislature to discourage the hiring of illegal aliens within the Sunflower State.

Democrats' immigration plan targets employers

BY JEANNINE KORANDA

Witchita Eagle 01/24/08

Eagle Topeka bureau

TOPEKA - Promising to attack the "magnet" drawing illegal immigrants to Kansas -- jobs -- House Democrats presented an immigration reform package Wednesday focused on employers.
Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka, called the proposal a "rational response to a serious problem that was largely created by employers who hire illegal workers."

In the Democrats' proposal, businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants face penalties including losing state contracts and grants, a three- to five-year probation period or losing their licenses after a second violation.

Democrats have previously tried unsuccessfully to pass similar measures. This year, Republicans in the House and Senate have listed immigration reform as a top priority.

Some Democrats are hoping that will help get the tougher employment measures through.
"We're glad to see that there is agreement that there are problems here that need to be addressed in the Kansas workplace," said House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg.

Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, is gathering signatures for an immigration reform package she plans to push this year. Her idea also cracks down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, but includes several social aspects.

She wants to ensure illegal immigrants aren't receiving public benefits such as welfare or voting.
"The question is, why are they targeting just the businesses?" she asked.

Landwehr said she wanted to see the details of the Democrats' proposal before commenting on it in detail.

The House GOP also wants to make voters present a photo ID before casting a ballot, to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Republicans say the problem is widespread, but have offered no specific evidence.

Democrats said there was no evidence of a problem with illegal immigrants voting and they felt the current laws were sufficient.

Democrats and Republicans say that if employers use E-verify, a free online database businesses can use to check new employees' names and Social Security numbers, they will not be punished if they employ illegal immigrants.

The Kansas Chamber of Commerce opposes the idea of requiring businesses to use additional checks beyond what the federal government already requires, said Glen Dening, vice president for political affairs at the chamber.
http://www.kansas.com/news/legislature/story/290308.htm

Representative Mah's bill suggests that Democrats in the Kansas Legislature understand the importance of solving the illegal immigration problem. Legislators in other states would be well advised to take a similar course of action. The American people want illegal immigration brought under control and the first step is stop the law-breaking employers who act as magnets for undocumented workers.

Webb advocates rebuilding America's Navy

The Daily Press reports that Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) is advocating a larger Navy to maintain U.S. defense capabilities against China and other potential threats. A former U.S. Navy Secretary, Webb points out that the size of America's Naval fleet is at a 90 year low.
Webb calls for stronger Navy fleet

The senator wants to increase the size of the fleet beyond its current target of 313 vessels.

by Peter Frost

January 17, 2008

ARLINGTON - -->Sen. Jim Webb called for a stronger Navy fleet and expressed frustration with Senate Republicans and the Bush administration for obstructionist tactics Wednesday in a speech to the Surface Navy Association.Webb, a Virginia Democrat beginning his second year in the Senate this month, said the war in Iraq and a slowing economy are "the most serious pair of challenges we've faced since the combination of the Great Depression and World War II."

Echoing comments Tuesday by the Navy's top officer, Adm. Gary Roughead, Webb called for increasing the size of the Navy's fleet beyond its current target of 313 vessels and strengthening maintenance and modernization projects by encouraging more free-market competition among contractors.

"Three hundred thirteen can't do it, I can't see, in the long run," Webb said. "We're building one (submarine) per year and the Chinese are building three per year. We need a strategy based on the United States being a maritime nation, and the United States should be a sea power."

With a current fleet of 280 ships, and only 109 under way, the Navy's fleet, Webb said, is at a 90-year low. During his tenure as Secretary of the Navy, Webb said he oversaw a fleet of 568 ships."Simply stated, we are decommissioning Navy ships faster than we are building them," he said. "It is imperative that we reverse this steady slide in shipbuilding." He said industry, the Navy and Congress all bear responsibility to find ways to cut costs in shipbuilding, and shipbuilding facilities need a steady, reliable stream of work so they aren't forced to lay off workers during slow periods.

With the war in Iraq tying up much of the military's budget, the Navy and shipbuilding have largely taken a back seat in funding, Webb said. That's an error the Navy might have a hard time in recovering from, he said.

With new threats posed by an expanding Chinese military, a flagging economy and other discouraging factors, a strong Navy is as important as any time in the country's history. A key goal of the next administration must be to wind down the situation in Iraq — a war Webb called a "strategic blunder" — so more troops and resources can be deployed elsewhere, he said."We have economic issues, and we have issues of national security and military policy. At the same time, we have way too much bickering in this government," Webb said. "It is extremely frustrating."

After Democrats took control of Congress following the 2006 mid-term elections, the White House and Republicans in Congress "made a conscious decision that there would be no victories on major issues and, particularly on national defense issues" for Democrats, he said.

Obstructionist tactics by Senate Republicans led to 62 filibusters of Democratic-lead proposals in 2007, more than the previous record of 61 over a two-year period, he said."We've got to get into the political process the notion that the issues confronting us are greater than political parties," he said.

With time left in President Bush's last term winding the final turn, the president "has got to realize that if he wants any kind of legacy at all, (the administration) has to start cooperating," Webb said. "He better step up."

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-news_navywebb_0117jan17,0,6672206.story

Check out this brief video narrated by Former Marine officer Tom Reynolds describing how the size of America's Navy fleet has been cut in half over the past twenty years.

http://www.seapowerambassador.org/americas-navy-sinking.html

Taiwan deserves to be recognized as a nation

From the site UN for Taiwan:

Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation that happens to be one of the world's most vibrant democracies. The people of Taiwan enjoy full human rights, civil liberties, and press freedom and live in a modern society just like the United States and many first world nations.

Yet Taiwan is not allowed inside the United Nations due to China's bullying. China insists that Taiwan must be a part of China because ancestrally, many Taiwanese come from China. This would be like Britain demanding the annexation of the United States because many Americans and the descendants of the British. Although the current government of China has never owned or governed a single piece of Taiwan. China has historically has never even governed most of Taiwan and yet the Chinese government insists all of Taiwan belongs to them.

If the United Nations is supposed to stand for universal human rights, it should allow Taiwan membership. Taiwan is one of the bigger democracies in the world, and enjoys freedom unmatched by most of the world, yet the 23 million inhabitants of Taiwan are shunned for political convenience.

http://unfortaiwan.org/

Just after posting this item, I saw a news flash about the election results from Taiwan. http://www.radicalcontrapositions.com/left_flank/2008/01/13/bad-days-for-taiwan-ahead/ The KMT victory over the Democratic Progressive Party (which has sought U.N. admission and recognition of Taiwanese independence) means a likely thaw in Chinese-Taiwanese relations and opens the strong possibility of unification within the next decade.

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/diplomacy/2008/01/taiwan-and-chin.html?cid=97013330#comment-97013330

This election outcome is not good news for the U.S. or the people of Taiwan. I hope that Taiwan can continue as an independent nation although unification does look like a real possibility.
Taiwan is not only a free nation but also more of a true social democracy than China. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2234321,00.html Will the citizens of Taiwan want to give up their freedom of expression, social safety net and real trade unions for autocratic Chinese rule ?

Given the decline of U.S. economic and military power as well as lack of public international support,I can understand why many in Taiwan might conclude that there is no other alternative but to embrace China.

I think it is a decision that many in Taiwan will regret just as the average American will eventually recognize that their once great nation was destroyed by big business-controlled leaders.

Florida's working families need property tax relief

In addition to the Presidential preference primary on January 29, Florida voters will be asked to vote on Amendment 1 which would raise the property tax homestead exemption from twenty five thousand to fifty thousand dollars. The amendment also allows homeowners to transfer their present homestead exemption if they sell their home. This is a very important issue as the cost of home ownership and property taxes have skyrocketed in Florida over the past ten years. Working families are simply unable to afford home ownership or losing their property to foreclosure.

Even though real estate prices have declined slightly in Florida, a modest home purchased ten years ago for 100K may be still worth two to three times that amount today. Thanks to the Same Our Homes amendment passed in 1992, Floridians with resident homestead exemptions on their property are limited to a three percent per year increase in property taxes. The problem is that sometimes our circumstances change and we need to sell our homes and move.

A working or middle class family cannot afford to sell their house and move in Florida under the present circumstances. Just moving to the same size residence in a similar kind of neighborhood across town might mean paying ten times as much in property taxes. A senior citizen selling a three bedroom house and moving to a one bedroom condo will end up paying more in property taxes. If you live in a starter home or a condo and desire a larger home - forget it unless you win the lottery. The situation is just intolerable. Important people like teachers, police officers, firefighters and nurses cannot afford to buy homes in many areas of Florida. Unless we have another Great Depression, the housing market is not going to fall enough to remedy this problem.

Over the past few years, local governments have reaped a tremendous windfall in revenue thanks to the housing boom and skyrocketing tax assessments. Local political hacks like Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton are using scare tactics with claims that police officers and firefighters will be laid off Amendment 1 passes. Public employee unions have bought into these arguments even though their members would benefit from the passage of Amendment 1. One way for local governments to make up the lost revenue is to stop giving tax breaks to big business and impose impact fees on developers.

I am not convinced that our local governments cannot find ways to operate with greater efficiency. While I am far from a knee-jerk anti-government type and certainly support labor unions, we have to recognize that our working families simply must have tax relief. I happen to share the concerns that many opponents of Amendment 1 have about possible reductions in services but can also see how the American Dream of property ownership is slipping away from Florida's working families. Our working and middle class families need property tax relief now. Unfortunately, many of our elected officials have forgotten that government exists for the people rather than the other way around.

Many of the same arguments used in opposition to Amendment 1 were similarly raised against the Save Our Homes amendment in 1992. The sky didn't fall after Save Our Homes and passed and it will not happen once Amendment 1 is approved.

The main force behind Amendment 1 is Florida Governor Charlie Crist. As a Democrat, I don't generally have a lot of praise for Republican politicians but Charlie Crist's efforts for tax relief are worthy of applause. Many Democratic elected officials could learn a thing or two from Governor Charlie Crist. There is little doubt that Crist's populism, moderate approach to social issues, tough stand on crime and minimal partisanship could make an effective platform for Democrats seeking the Statehouse in a number of other states. Another good role model for Democrats at the Statehouse is our party's Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe who successfully lowered sales taxes on groceries which certainly benefits working families.

I urge all Floridians to vote for Amendment 1 on January 29.

http://www.yeson1florida.com/

Mainstream media shows bias against Edwards

John Lorenz makes a good case for mainstream media bias against John Edwards in a post on Op-Ed News. For months, the corporate media have been making every effort to narrow the Democratic Presidential nomination contest to a Clinton-Obama race. The real news from Iowa is that Hillary Clinton finished third despite a tremendous investment of time and campaign money.

DEAFENING CORPORATE-MEDIA SILENCE ON EDWARDS GOOD SHOWING IN IOWA IS A DIRECT STAB AT EDWARDS' POPULISM.

by John Lorenz

http://www.opednews.com/

Outspent 6 to 1, John Edwards' populist message still beat out the Hillary Clinton-Establishment-Status-Quo party and money machine in Iowa.

In another slap at corporate power and greed, Edwards delivered his concession speech for having come in second to Barak Obama as a defiant challenge to the status quo corporatocracy which is depriving decent Americans of healthcare, jobs and their democracy. "The status quo lost and change won," Edwards told the Iowa crowd.

While Barack Obama may seem to some like JFK, because of his inspiring words of change and hope in a historic moment for the country, Edwards, in his rhetoric might be compared to Bobby Kennedy for the passion and anger he feels as he witnesses the problems caused by a grinding lack of needed reform, in a 'bought' system run by corporate-greed that relegates the majority of Americans to two-tiered economic and social inequality between haves and have-nots.

So you'd think Edwards would get kudos for finishing so unexpectedly well against the status-quo's darling, Hillary Clinton. But nope. Not a word.

The media moguls are just sure Edwards will not make it out of January. And he may not because he doesn't have Obama or Clinton's $100 million campaign war chests that seem necessary for the waging of a national campaign.

What the corporate media don't like is that Edwards has a message of democratic populism: rewarding work, supporting sustained growth and full employment, providing universal health care, repairing ravaged pensions, calling for public investment and working for an end to poverty.

Edwards' campaign has put the central issue of our time center stage: Who controls our country--corporations or the people? He's the only candidate who says, fearlessly : "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." We haven't heard words like that in our campaigns in a while, at least not from anyone near top of the polls.

What Edwards brings that Obama and Clinton so far haven’t is a fighting spirit to take back our government from corporate powers and interests. Obama and Clinton speak lots of populist fluff--and, yes, they’re more moderate in tone—but they both have avoided being specifics and substance on the issues of economic fairness, justice and dignity. The only one who has done so, and has a chance at winning, is John Edwards.

The status quo is scared of him because he not only can drive that message home into the next primaries and election is John Edwards, but he could carry the 'solid South,' being a self-made southern boy who earned his way to where he is and didn't get it from the pockets of lobbyists. .

Now, that said: One day after the Iowa caucuses, something seems queer to me about the media coverage of the Iowa results.

Has anyone else noticed that the “lamestream” news media, even in their very early hours of reporting, seemed to already act as if John Edwards no longer mattered at all?

What I see in the reporting so far is Edwards’s second place finish being 'dissed' by a deafening silence of coverage. It is as if Edwards were not even relevant and had lost big! If these media talking-heads mention Edwards at all, they lump him into the ‘loser’ category with Hillary in Iowa and then continue to treat Hillary and Obama as the two main players going forward into the next primaries. I noticed in the wee morning hours of Friday after the Iowa caucuses, for example, that ABC News had hardly mentioned Edwards at all, scarcely even once in a whole night of reporting on the results of the caucus. And when they did mention Edwards’ for just a nano-second, they dismissed him as a loser basically, now, out of the running.

If this is not an example of mainstream media bias, I don't know what is. The reporting has just simply glossed over what should be announced as an absolute shocker: John Edwards actually BEAT Hillary Clinton, who was expected to be a shoe-in.

That’s pretty impressive, even if Edwards didn't come in first.

All the corporate media shills can do is to repeat the mantra of Obama vs. Hillary, over and over, still framing everything in terms of a Clinton-Obama horse race.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_lor_080104_deafening_corporate_.htm

Despite polls showing Edwards as the strongest Democratic Presidential contender in a general election http://www.jedreport.com/2007/12/john-edwards-is.html, the mainstream media continues to downplay Edwards' viablity as a candidate. In face The Jed Report points out, the corporate media blackout of Edwards is getting worse. http://www.jedreport.com/2008/01/the-corporate-1.html