Wednesday, September 25, 2013

#THISisBuyingUnionRemorse

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Joseph Hansen
International President
UFCW

D. Taylor
President
UNITE-HERE

source:
Union Letter: Obamacare Will ‘Destroy The Very Health and Wellbeing’ of Workers - Corporate Intelligence - WSJ

#THISisFilibustering

The longest U.S. Senate filibusters since 1900, when the Senate began keeping precise records, the senators who spoke for hours on end, the issues and the years:
  • 24 hours, 18 minutes: Strom Thurmond, (D-S.C.), civil rights bill, 1957.
  • 23 hours, 30 minutes: Alfonse D'Amato, (R-N.Y.), military bill, 1986.
  • 22 hours, 26 minutes: Wayne Morse, (R-Ore.), Tidelands oil bill, 1953.
  • 18 hours, 23 minutes: Robert La Follette Sr., (R-Wis.), currency bill, 1908.
  • 16 hours, 12 minutes: William Proxmire, (D-Wis.), debt increase, 1981.
  • 15 hours, 30 minutes: Huey Long, (D-La.), industrial recovery, 1935.
  • 15 hours, 14 minutes: D'Amato, (R-N.Y.), tax bill, 1992.
  • 14 hours, 13 minutes: Robert Byrd, (D-W.Va.), civil rights bill, 1964.
  • 12 hours, 52 minutes: Rand Paul, (R-Ky.), use of drones against American citizens, 2013.
  • 8 hours, 39 minutes: Harry Reid, (D-Nev.), protesting a Republican-led filibuster, 2003.
  • 8 hours, 37 minutes: Bernard Sanders, (I-Vt.), extension of tax cuts, 2010.

source:
The Longest US Senate Filibusters - ABC News

Monday, September 23, 2013

#THISisDreamVote

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary
Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 744 As Amended )
Vote Number: 168
Vote Date: June 27, 2013, 04:11 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 744 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act )
Measure Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---68
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---32
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

source
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress

Thursday, September 5, 2013

#THISisArabInvasionByProxy


Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table."

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

"In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost," Kerry said. "That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done."

source:
The House’s Syria hearing: Live updates - The Washington Post - by Aaron Blake on September 4, 2013

Friday, July 26, 2013

#THISisMyFort

The use and meaning of forte and fort are pretty simple. It's the use and meaning of forte and forte that cause problems.

We have in English three words that came to us from the same ultimate source by different routes. The word fort, which means 'a location occupied by troops and surrounded by defensive works' or more broadly 'any permanent army post' or figuratively 'any strong position that one defends', comes from Middle French and is derived from Latin fortis 'strong'. Fort is pronounced the way you think it is and nothing about the word is complicated.

There are two different (but etymologically related) words forte. One is a musical term, meaning 'loud; with force' or in other parts of speech 'loudly' and 'a loud passage', all of which are contrasted with piano. This word, which is pronounced FOR-tay, is from Italian, ultimately from the same Latin fortis mentioned above.

The other forte is from French fort, the same source as the fort meaning 'defensive military location' we just discussed. The French word is fort, masculine, not forte; the -e is a false feminine ending, by analogy with such words as morale and also by confusion with the Italian forte. Its original meaning is 'the part of a sword or foil blade between the hilt and the middle, stronger than the foible', but the common sense is 'one's strong point; an ability or role in which one excels; specialty'.

The pronunciation of forte 'strong point' is a subject of much debate. The most common pronunciation--by far--in America is FOR-tay, the same as the Italian musical term. Conservative usage writers usually insist that this pronunciation is wrong, and only the pronunciation FORT (identical to the word fort 'defensive military location') is acceptable. The rationale is that the French word forte should be pronounced like fort in English; people who pronounce is FOR-tay are either confusing it with the Italian musical term or are assuming that it's spelled forté, which would be pronounced FOR-tay. (In fact, the word is occasionally found in print in the forté spelling, confirming that people do make that mistake.)

There are several problems with this argument. First, the French word is simply not forte, it is fort, so the forte spelling is wrong from the start. Second, the correct French word fort is pronounced FOR, without a "t." Thus, anyone claiming that the FORT pronunciation is correct because of any connection with French is simply wrong. Another factor is that French words can be Anglicized however we see fit--Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage points out that the punctuation mark (') is pronounced uh-PAHS-tro-fee in English, even though it "should" be pronounced ah-pahs-TROPH, since it's from French. Finally, there's the point that the FOR-tay pronunciation is so common that most people now have never heard of the FORT pronunciation and will think it's wrong.

None of this, of course, makes FOR-tay a correct pronunciation; it comes from a mistake of one kind or another. But there is no pronunciation of forte 'strong point' that is etymologically acceptable, so it comes down to a question of choosing which error you want to go with. FORT is favored by the more conservative, but is much less familiar; FOR-tay is far more common but is thought to be wrong by people who bother expressing opinions on such matters. The choice is yours.

source:
The Mavens' Word of the Day - forte and fort

Monday, July 8, 2013

#THISisVaginaGun

"If my vagina was a gun, you would stand for its rights,
You would ride on buses and fight all the fights.
If my vagina was a gun, you would treat it with care,
You wouldn't spill all its secrets because, well, why go there.
If my vaginas was a gun, you'd say what it holds is private
From cold dead hands we could pry, you surely would riot.
If my vagina was a gun, its rights would all be protected,
no matter the body count or the children affected.
If my vagina was a gun, I could bypass security,
concealed carry laws would ensure I'd have impunity.
If my vagina was a gun, I wouldn't have to beg you,
I could hunt this great land and do all the things men do.
But my vagina is not a gun, it is a mightier thing,
With a voice that rings true making lawmakers' ears ring.
Vaginas are not delicate, they are muscular and magic,
So stop messing with mine, with legislation that's tragic.
My vagina's here to demand from the source,
Listen to the voices of thousands or feel their full force."
-Katie Heim

source:
LIVEBLOG: Texas Senate committee hears abortion legislation | The Daily Texan

Friday, June 28, 2013

#THISisDOMASenate1996

H.R. 3396 (104th): Defense of Marriage Act (On Passage of the Bill)
Sep 10, 1996 (104th Congress)

Democrat Senators voting YEA on passage of DOMA
  1. Max Baucus (D-MT)
  2. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-DE)
  3. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
  4. John Breaux (D-LA)
  5. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
  6. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
  7. Thomas "Tom" Daschle (D-SD)
  8. Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
  9. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
  10. Bob Graham (D-FL)
  11. Thomas "Tom" Harkin (D-IA)
  12. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC)
  13. Herbert "Herb" Kohl (D-WI)
  14. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  15. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
  16. Carl Levin (D-MI)
  17. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
  18. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
  19. Patty Murray (D-WA)
  20. Harry Reid (D-NV)
  21. John "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV)
  22. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
  23. Richard Bryan (D-NV)
  24. Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
  25. William "Bill" Bradley (D-NJ)
  26. Dale Bumpers (D-AR)
  27. James Exon (D-NE)
  28. Wendell Ford (D-KY)
  29. John Glenn Jr. (D-OH)
  30. Howell Heflin (D-AL)
  31. John Johnston Jr. (D-LA)
  32. Samuel Nunn (D-GA)

source:
H.R. 3396 (104th): Defense of Marriage Act (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us