This story tells us that the relief well they’re planning to install could be ready between July 20th and the 27th.
Oh, and did I mention that the 27th is also the date that the company will issue its financial earnings report?
But there’s no coincidence there at all, of course.
None whatsoever.
“With this budget failure – a first in the modern era – Democrats are missing a critical opportunity to provide the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to create private-sector jobs and boost our economy”...What Ryan was talking about was when the Congressional Dem leadership issued a “deeming resolution” that a budget had been passed in lieu of actually voting on the budget.
Well, guess what David Waldman of Daily Kos found out here…
The phrase (or any variation of it, including Ryan’s) is being repeated verbatim by teabagger types, wherever you can stand to look.Looks like those evil bloggers in their bathrobes taking their hallucinogenic drugs and watching “School House Rock” have scooped our somnambulant corporate media again.
But is it true? Well, I suppose PolitiFact might say, "barely true."
Why? Well, because it's true that the House has never before failed to pass a budget and then deemed one passed instead.
But the Senate has. Four times. And all under Republican control. And as we all know, it couldn't make less of a difference whether the House alone did or didn't fail to pass a budget and then deem one passed. It matters only whether or not the Congress fails to pass a budget and then deems one passed.
And it has. As I said, four times. And again, all under Republican control.
With less than four months before his first midterm election, President Obama's lawsuit against Arizona's new illegal immigrant law is running against a strong tide of American support for the measure.Leave it to a “Republic” Party sympathizer like Malcolm to note that Obama’s lawsuit is supported by only 33 percent of those polled thus far; Gallup is pretty reliable I’ll admit, but I wasn’t able to determine how many of those polled were Hispanic. Also, for what it’s worth, while 33 percent support the suit and 50 percent oppose it, 17 percent of those polled had no opinion.
Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.
Well, maybe Malcolm should have a talk with fellow conservative Andrew Napolitano, who also happens to be a judge. As Media Matters tells us here, Napolitano said the AZ law was “unconstitutional” and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that immigration laws are "strictly a federal issue."
Indeed, in an effort to further smear Obama’s suit, Steve Doocy of Fix Noise ignored a High Court ruling in the 1941 case of Hines v. Davidowitz (here); the Court examined a Pennsylvania statute that mandated every immigrant to register with the state once each year, provide other information and details that the state Department of Labor asked for, obtain and carry an identification card, and display it when asked by police, among other stipulations. The federal government challenged the state law because the law "encroached upon the legislative powers constitutionally vested in the federal government." The Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the federal government:
is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.So really, what Obama is doing with the suit against Arizona’s “illegal to be brown” law is merely to try and enforce federal authority (and as far as advocating amnesty for illegals after they “pay a fine and wait in line”…well, it looks like a presidential predecessor of the opposing party beat him to it here).
HouseYet again, the Repugs (with the exception of Mike Castle, doing his best to position himself as a moderate for his Senate contest) just loves “the banksters.”
Financial regulations. Voting 237-192, the House approved the conference report on a bill (HR 4173) to impose new financial rules on Wall Street in hopes of preventing further U.S. economic meltdowns. The bill outlaws or regulates many of the reckless practices that led to the Great Recession's investment-bank failures, taxpayer bailouts, and epidemic of mortgage foreclosures.
A yes vote was to approve the conference report.
Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), and Joe Sestak (D., Pa.).
Voting no: Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
Afghanistan withdrawal. Voting 100-321, the House defeated an amendment to require the military funding in HR 4899…to be spent on orderly U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan instead of combat operations.I’m not really happy with anyone in this bunch who opposed funding the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan (though maybe a percentage of the funding could have been voted on instead?), but I just wanted to say thanks to the 93 Dems who are trying to restore some sanity to our debate about what to do in the land where empires die (here…and I know some Repugs voted Yes also, but I’m not about to give Dana Rohrabacher credit for anything).
A yes vote backed withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Voting no: Adler, Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Pitts, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.
And last, but certainly least (he was overdue for a really awful No vote, actually)…
Extended jobless benefits. Voting 270-153, the House passed a bill (HR 5618) to provide extended jobless benefits through November at a cost of $34 billion in deficit spending. Senate Republicans (below) blocked a similar bill. Both bills would immediately send checks to an estimated two million people whose eligibility for jobless benefits expired June 1 or later. Congress will revisit the issue after it returns July 12 from its current recess.This tells us that Lancaster County’s unemployment rate went up over the last year from 7.0 to 8.0 percent (and as always, to send Pitts packing, click here).
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Adler, Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.
Voting no: Pitts.
On June 28 I attended a protest rally on Mill Street in Bristol: Tea partiers vs. supporters of Congressman Patrick Murphy. What a joke!Yep - also...
Standing in front of Murphy's office were some very misinformed tea partiers. On the opposite side of the street were over 50 sign-holding Murphy supporters. The tea partiers were angry that Murphy was hosting a job fair.
Do we not need jobs? Do we not want to keep our homes?
All I have to say about those people yelling "We don't want socialism!" is hand over your Medicare cards.
Cynthia Genis
Middletown, PA
(Bristol, PA) – ON JULY 8, 2010 Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8th District) hosted an Economic Forum to discuss efforts to revitalize the local economy. He was joined by panelists with extensive experience in the trade and manufacturing sectors to talk about what is being done to protect American jobs and rebuild the manufacturing base in Bucks County.To reward our congressman’s good behavior, click here.
“American families have been put through the wringer,” said Congressman Murphy. “We need to get our economy back on track by building things in America again.”
In his remarks, the Congressman laid out his economic priorities, which include fighting against trade deals that ship American jobs overseas and working to close tax loopholes that encourage job outsourcing. He noted that failed economic policies and ill-conceived trade agreements have dealt a heavy blow to the manufacturing sectors in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Bucks County alone lost 35% of its manufacturing base –15,000 jobs – over the last 30 years.
The Congressman also discussed incentives for manufacturing he has championed, including tax credits for companies to invest in clean energy technology. Gamesa USA, a Fairless Hills company that manufactures turbines used in wind energy, qualified for a $2 million tax credit to create green energy jobs in Bucks County.
One of the panelists, Mike Russo, is President of the United Steelworkers of America Local 4889 and represents the employees at the Gamesa site. As a former US Steel employee, Russo witnessed firsthand the impact of the manufacturing giant’s collapse in Bucks County. Families who were once securely rooted in the middle-class suddenly faced the possibility of losing everything they’d worked for. Russo discussed how continuing to bring new American manufacturing jobs to the region is key to revitalizing the local economy.
“Working families in our area have had it tough, especially those of us who used to work in the steel industry,” said Russo. “The fact is, the future lies in clean energy and we’ve been proud to work with Patrick Murphy to bring those jobs here to Bucks County and put people back to work.”
Other panelists included Jim Horan, president of local clean energy company Y-Carbon, and Scott Paul of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, who laid out a blueprint for protecting American jobs and what investments need to be made to revitalize the American manufacturing sector.
1 comment:
I think this is supposed to be satire - I'd be concerned if you were serious.
Post a Comment