Saturday, March 27, 2010
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
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”
“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
“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.