A massive snowstorm is slamming America's midsection -- again. New York City just set a record for January snowfall. The South has experienced bitter cold, snow and ice this winter.
If the Earth is getting warmer, why's it so darn snowy and cold?
Are the U.S. winter extremes proof that global warming isn't happening or is a hoax, as some skeptics suggest? Or are the winter extremes a product of a warming atmosphere, as many climate change advocates assert?
Opinions about climate change vary greatly, even among experts in climate science.
There's no debating that it's been cold, especially in January.
According to Deke Arndt of the federal National Climatic Data Center, "January 2011 will rank among the coldest 20 percent of Januarys on record since 1895."
December brought the coldest temperatures on record to parts of South Florida, although the month averaged near normal for the nation as a whole.
There's also no debating that there's been plenty of snow. A record 36 inches fell in Central Park in January, crushing New York City's old record of 27.4 inches set in 1925. Snowfall records also fell last month elsewhere in the Northeast, while blizzards hit the Midwest and a major snow and ice storm swept through the Deep South.
"I believe the events we are seeing are entirely natural," said Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. "Persistent storminess in one location means someplace else is having unusually quiet weather. One of the reasons we know this is that our global precipitation measurements from satellites show that the total amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth remains almost exactly the same, year after year."
Spencer said global temperatures have been falling for about the past 12 months. "The global average is now approaching the long-term normal," he said.
Spencer is a skeptic of man-made global warming, noting on his website that climate changes occur with or without our help.
Even experts who have contributed to the United Nations' discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also believe this year's winter weather extremes cannot be directly attributed to large-scale climate changes.
Dennis Hartmann, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and future lead author of the IPCC's upcoming assessment, concurs.
"I don't think we have the capability to attribute one year's extreme event to greenhouse gas increases," he said. "If you have an unprecedented extreme event, or several of them, for which we have a good physical argument for why human-induced climate change is the cause, then I could see attribution of an extreme event to human activity. But this winter is probably not one of those."
There's no doubt that the debate about climate change, especially as it is related to human activity, will continue, but it will never be settled based on one season.
Of course, we don't hear from our favorite meteorologist, Punxsutawney Phil, until dawn Wednesday.
Thanks, Anon, I'm sure GlobalClimateScam.com (motto: "Exposing the truth about global warming hysteria") is a good, unbiased source of information about the climate and insights into the science of meteorology.
the end is near for BO's biggest achievement said...
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday introduced a measure aimed at repealing the national health-care overhaul as an amendment to the first Senate bill of the new Congress.
McConnell proposed the repeal measure as an amendment to a Federal Aviation Administration funding bill. The move came one day after a federal judge in Florida ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority by mandating insurance for nearly all Americans. A vote could come as early as Wednesday, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide.
The push for a vote on repealing the health-care law has picked up broad support among Senate Republicans. South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint announced on Monday afternoon that his bill calling for the full repeal of the health-care overhaul had won the support of all 47 Senate Republicans.
Unknown is how many Democrats will sign onto the bill, now that us has been declared unconstitutional.
"The Republicans obviously want to do something on health care, and so we want to get it over with very quickly," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
In addition to the full repeal amendment, a separate amendment sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) that would repeal the unpopular 1099 provision of the health-care law is also on the table this week.
As of late last week, a similar measure sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) had garnered the support of more than 60 senators, including 45 Republicans and 15 Democrats.
Other Republicans in Congress are moving ahead aggressively with their effort to overturn the health-care overhaul. Earlier Tuesday, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.) introduced legislation that would allow states to opt out of provisions of the national health care law including the employer mandate, individual insurance benefit mandates and Medicaid expansion.
Graham said that while the full repeal of the health-care law remains Senate Republicans' "number-one goal," the State Health Care Choice Act that he and Barrasso are proposing "takes the battle out of Washington to the states" and that if enough states ultimately opt out, it could be enough to render the national health-care law ineffective.
"Instead of requiring states to follow Obamacare's one-size-fits-all approach to health-care policy, our bill allows states to decide what works best for their citizens," Graham said at a Capitol news conference.
Barrasso hailed Monday's ruling by a Florida judge striking down the entire overhaul as "the second dagger into the heart of Obamacare" and said that his legislation "gives states the sovereignty" to pursue their own solutions.
McConnell took to the floor earlier Tuesday to renew his call for a vote on full repeal and noting that Republicans are united in their opposition to the health care overhaul.
"The importance of a repeal vote becomes more evident every day," McConnell said. "Americans view it as an important decision point -- a marker that shows we're serious about a return to limited government. On that point, it should be clear where Republicans stand. Every one of us voted against the bill. Every one of us voted for repeal after that. And this week, every Republican reaffirmed his or her commitment to doing it again."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will chair a hearing on the constitutionality of the national health-care law on Wednesday morning, two days after the Florida ruling.
The hearing, which will take place before the full Senate Judiciary Committee, will be the first-ever to examine the constitutionality of the health care law. Democrats have called Oregon Attorney General John Kroger and former solicitors general Walter Dellinger and Charles Fried to testify; Republicans have invited Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and attorney Michael Carvin.
NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record Summer 2010 the second warmest on record, Arctic sea ice continues its 14-year decline
NOAA reports "Global Highlights
For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.
The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.
The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.
The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average.
In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which influences temperature and precipitation patterns around the world. A moderate-to-strong El Niño at the beginning of the year transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong."
McConnell is wasting his time playing politics as usual. The people are sick of it. The people want the changes health care reform has brought. Nobody wants to go back to denying sick children health insurance because of their pre-exisiting conditions.
he's a principal research scientist at a major university
who are you?
"McConnell is wasting his time playing politics as usual. The people are sick of it."
really?
according to the RealClearPolitics.com average, Americans oppose Obamacare 47-40
of course, it would be higher except the average includes the outlier NY Times, the only poll that finds the public favors Obamacare
more reliable polls put the divide between those who favor and not at 20 points
"The people want the changes health care reform has brought."
apparently not
"Nobody wants to go back to denying sick children health insurance because of their pre-exisiting conditions."
obviously, no one wants sick children to not receive care
the organizations that help such kids would have a lot more resources if Democrats made charitable donations at anywhere near the rate Republicans do
still, sick children in America are not denied care because their parents don't have health insurance
"The aphorism "Act in haste, repent at leisure" never applied more aptly than it does to Obamacare.
Nancy Pelosi rushed through Obamacare, without allowing time to read the bill, by explaining: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Reading the bill produced last November's angry electorate.
Now, Obamacare is in critical condition.
On Monday, a Florida federal court delivered the latest blow to Obamacare, ruling that the statute is unconstitutional. It follows a similar decision from a Virginia federal court and the House of Representatives' vote to repeal the law. Monday's decision stretches out the negative news for a monumental piece of legislation hailed just a year ago as a great triumph.
Obamacare supporters should now appreciate the virtue of the Constitution's design to slow legislative changes. The Constitution is intended to create stability through reasoned deliberation. The process generally results in compromise and consensus. To the frustration of many, the structure of our constitutional democracy necessarily makes changing legislation much more difficult than it would be in a pure democracy.
The Constitution's framers anticipated that Congress and the president would sometimes thwart the Constitution's design for forcing deliberation. They therefore provided federal courts as a further protection against the power hungry. With this second federal court ruling against Obamacare, it increasingly seems that the health law may not survive when it reaches the Supreme Court.
One thing federal judges always do -- even if members of Congress do not -- is read the legislation brought before them."
""Among children, dental services are the most needed service that they do not receive," says Judith Lave, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of Pittsburg, PA.
"I think it is probably the least covered of our health benefits across the nation," she adds."
"Uninsured kids and adults are denied necessary medical treatment every day. Check out the second person to die because they were denied a needed transplant by Governor Jan Brewer's budget cutting death panel in AZ."
It wasn't because they didn't have insurance.
Rahm Emanuel's brother has been appointed to decide when the chance of success of a procedure is high enough that it will be covered under Obamacare.
He is on record as a proponent of health rationing.
This will cause the denial of treatment for millions, including children. Already happens in countries with national health care.
You might call his little group a "death panel."
"How high do you think the mercury will go today in DC? 50 degrees? 55?"
I don't know if there's a pool but I've heard it will be in mid-50s.
Back down to low 30s tomorrow.
I guess that proves we need to tax carbon emmissions, huh?
btw, you may remember that McDonald's last year said they would have to cancel their employees' health insurance because Obamacare had raise the price of insurance premiums too high
Obama said no problem. McDonald's is exempted from Obamacare.
Since then, 733 employers have been exempted from Obamacare.
About a quarter are unions, Barry's best buddies.
Let's just admit Obamacare is a failure and get rid of it. A Federal Court has ruled it unconstitutional and ordered implementation halted. The House of Representatives has voted to repeal it. The majority of doctors says it will harm the quality of our healthcare. The majority of voters favor repeal. Most state governments are opposed to it. Businesses are saying they can't afford it. Obama is passing out unfair exemptions like lolipops.
The Senate has a chance to agree with the House and repeal this week. All it will take is a handful of Dems to read the tea leaves.
Then, what will Barry do?
Stare down the nations' courts and legislators and doctors and businesses and voters and say "I know better than anyone" by vetoing it?
Rahm Emanuel's brother has been appointed to decide when the chance of success of a procedure is high enough that it will be covered under Obamacare.
The decision to not pay for transplants for US citizens who are residents of Arizona and rely on Medicaid has nothing to do with Dr. Emanuel and everything to do with Jan Brewer.
"A second person in Arizona has died while waiting for an organ transplant. Not because they couldn't find a donor but because state budget cuts took the patients off the transplant list....
"There's absolutely no way you can justify killing people to save really a little bit over a million dollars," says Ariz. Rep. Chad Campbell (D).
Campbell says cutting the transplant program is saving Arizona $1.4 million, or one-tenth of 1 percent of its $825 million budget deficit.
Ariz. governor Jan Brewer says Arizona is broke. "The state has only so much money and we can only provide so many optional kinds of care," she says."
The Treasury Department said Wednesday it has received $312.2 million from the sale of warrants it held in Citigroup Inc. The sale was the government's latest effort to recoup costs from the $700 billion financial bailout.
Treasury said that one group of the warrants was sold for $1.01 per warrant and a second group of warrants brought 26 cents per warrant. Treasury had set a minimum bid of 60 cents for the first group and 15 cents for the second group.
Treasury said with the warrant sale it has realized $12.3 billion in profits from the $45 billion in support it provided Citigroup during the height of the financial crisis beginning in the fall of 2008.
By purchasing the warrants, buyers will have the right to buy an equal amount of shares of Citigroup at a fixed price.
For the 255 million warrants designated as Group A warrants that went for $1.01, the fixed purchase price was set at $10.61. For the 210 million warrants designated as Group B warrants that went for 26 cents per warrant, the fixed purchase price was set at $17.85.
Citigroup stock closed Wednesday at $4.82. Over the past year, Citigroup shares have traded in a range of $3.11 to $5.15.
Citigroup received $45 billion in taxpayer support late in 2008 in one of the largest baiouts undertaken by the government as it struggled to contain the financial crisis.
The government has recouped all of the $45 billion in support it provided Citigroup through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Treasury's remaining interest in Citigroup consists of trust preferred securities with a principal value of $800 million. Those securities are being held by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to protect against possible losses on debt of Citigrup that is being guaranteed by the FDIC.
If the FDIC does not incur any losses on those guarantees, the $800 million in Citigroup securities will be turned over to Treasury, further boosting the government's return on its Citigroup investment.
"Our investment in Citigroup has produced a significant profit for taxpayers," Tim Massad, Treasury's acting assistant secretary for the bailout program, said in a statement. "As we exit our investments ... it's clear that the cost of the TARP program will be a fraction of what many had once feared during the depths of the crisis."
Here's how Wednesday's Senate vote turned out said...
"The Senate on Wednesday defeated a Republican-led effort to repeal the entire national health-care overhaul, with lawmakers voting strictly along party lines. The decision underscores the hurdle that the GOP faces in that Democratic-majority chamber as it tries to overturn the law.
All 50 Senate Democrats present and one independent voted against the repeal, while all 47 Republicans voted in favor. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) were not present. The measure was proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Republicans needed the support of 13 Democrats for the measure to move forward because of a Democratic-led procedural move that set up a 60-vote hurdle.
Democrats' unanimous opposition to the repeal came even though several vulnerable lawmakers up for re-election in 2012, including Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), had come under pressure to support repeal.
While the full repeal measure fell short, a separate health-care amendment offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) sailed through the Senate with bipartisan support. The Stabenow proposal, which would repeal an unpopular tax-reporting provision of the law that opponents say overburdens small businesses, passed on an 81-to-17 vote. The House has not yet considered that proposal.
A third amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was defeated on a 44-to-54 vote. That amendment, which was offered shortly before Wednesday's proposals came to the floor, was similar to Stabenow's but would have paid for the change by ending tax breaks for oil companies.
All three amendments were offered to an unrelated bill on funding of the Federal Aviation Administration. They came two days after a federal judge in Florida struck down the entire health-care law. The legal challenge to the law is expected to be decided ultimately by the Supreme Court.
Senate Republican leaders pushed back against the idea that the vote was a symbolic one."
"The federal governments bailout program has earned the taxpayer nearly $35 billion in the last two years, The Associated Press said.
Income from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) rose by almost 17% through November compared with the estimate in October, the AP said.
Part of the extra income came from the government's ongoing sale of stock in Citigroup (C). The government sold off the last of its stock in the banking giant Tuesday, earning a $12 billion return on its $45 billion investment.
The TARP program, enacted under President George W. Bush and continued under President Obama, has been widely reviled by voters as using taxpayer money to protect the very wealthy.
In his State of the Union speech in January, Obama said that the bank bailouts were "about as popular as root canal."
In recent months, the estimated cost of the program has fallen, while projected income jumped. Besides the extra income from Citigroup, the Treasury has received dividends from the support provided to the former financing division of General Motors (GM).
Last month, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office cut its estimate of the projected losses from the bailout program to $25 billion, compared with a forecast of $109 billion in March.
The CBO pointed to smaller than expected costs for the bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG) and automakers GM and Chrysler as key factors in the lower cost."
"and, yet, we're still projecting a record deficit of 1.5 trillion"
That's right. Somebody's got to pay for Bush's unfunded Medicare prescription donut hole along with those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were paid for with borrowed money while we were told "deficits don't matter." It turns out deficits do matter but they only matter to the GOP when a Democrat is in the White House. Maybe you noticed the promised Iraqi oil revenues that were going to pay for the Iraq war didn't pan out as Bush & Company predicted they would. Somebody's got to give money to states to pay their teachers, firemen, and cops -- private industry sure doesn't want to pay for any of that nor does private industry apparently want to create jobs. They'd rather sit on their huge unspent profits that they are free to spend - undisclosed - on political campaigns of those candidates who never met a regulation to protect "we the people" vs. corporate big wigs they could support.
"Since the government began aggressively issuing offshore drilling permits under President Reagan, the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, including exemptions from royalty payments — the fees due when a company extracts resources from U.S. government property."
Tax breaks for and free giveaways of our natural resources to highly profitable oil companies have got to end. All profitable companies should pay taxes on their profits "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, which states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
"Somebody's got to pay for Bush's unfunded Medicare prescription donut hole along with those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"
have you seen the average deficits while Bush was President?
he was able to do that without a trillion and a half dollar deficit
as a matter of fact, despite all the bellyaching by Dems, Bush's deficits were de minimis compared to Obama's
"Somebody's got to give money to states to pay their teachers, firemen, and cops"
the states already tax their citizens for those services
"private industry sure doesn't want to pay for any of that nor does private industry apparently want to create jobs"
actually, private industry has always created jobs in America
"They'd rather sit on their huge unspent profits that they are free to spend - undisclosed - on political campaigns of those candidates who never met a regulation to protect "we the people" vs. corporate big wigs they could support."
we are a capitalist country with freedom of speech
companies are supposed to try to maximize their profits
that's to the benefit of everyone
"Tax breaks for and free giveaways of our natural resources to highly profitable oil companies have got to end. All profitable companies should pay taxes on their profits"
we give companies tax breaks so they'll behave as we want
it's one of the ways government controls them
the best option would be to eliminate the corporate tax all together
the owners of the companies pay tax when they receive profits
why should the entities also pay taxes?
it's double taxation on success
we are penalizing success and then wondering why there isn't more of it
Obama had it right when he extended the Bush tax cuts for the super rich, tacitly admitting that Bush was right all along
if he wants to be re-elected, he'll need to continue in that direction
learn a lesson from Bill Clinton
he had huge deficits and had vetoed welfare reform twice before his first mid-term election
when he lost, like Obama did, he starting saying "yes sir" to Newt Gingrich, signed welfare reform, resulting in surpluses and got all the credit
if Barry would cooperate, we could give him a similar deal
"how can a motion that lost by one vote be considered symbolic?"
47-51 is not a one vote difference. You are not very good with numbers. "Math class is tough!"
"we are a capitalist country with freedom of speech
companies are supposed to try to maximize their profits
that's to the benefit of everyone"
So I guess we can go back to the days when there were no child labor laws. That way we can better help "companies maximize their profits." Why should "companies" care if kids get educated at school or at the textile mill? Who cares what parents think, obviously they don't produce jobs like "companies" do.
"The National Child Labor Committee, an organization dedicated to the abolition of all child labor, was formed in 1904. By publishing information on the lives and working conditions of young workers, it helped to mobilize popular support for state-level child labor laws. These laws were often paired with compulsory education laws which were designed to keep children in school and out of the paid labor market until a specified age (usually 12, 14, or 16 years.)
In 1914 the Arkansas state Federation of Labor placed a child welfare initiative on the ballot prohibiting child labor, which the voters passed.
In 1916, the NCLC and the National Consumers League successfully pressured the US Congress to pass the Keating-Owen Act, the first federal child labor law. However, the US Supreme Court struck down the law two years later in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), declaring that the law violated a child's right to contract his or her own labor. In 1924, Congress attempted to pass a constitutional amendment that would authorize a national child labor law. This measure was blocked, and the bill was eventually dropped.
It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children. In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor."
"So I guess we can go back to the days when there were no child labor laws."
I wouldn't do that and nothing I said would lead any sane person to believe I would.
My position is that in a free country, corporations should be free to do what they want with their lawfully made gains.
The moron who wrote this:
"private industry sure doesn't want to pay for any of that nor does private industry apparently want to create jobs. They'd rather sit on their huge unspent profits that they are free to spend - undisclosed - on political campaigns of those candidates who never met a regulation to protect "we the people" vs. corporate big wigs they could support"
apparently believes corporations are accountable to the government as what they use their profits for
But you think giving a corporation the unlimited right to contribute as much money as they want to without disclosing it is freedom. So tell us Anon, why should *only* corporations be given the right do that by the Supreme Court and not actual voting citizens?
23 Comments:
global warming
climate change
I just heard on the radio it will be 55 tomorrow.
A massive snowstorm is slamming America's midsection -- again. New York City just set a record for January snowfall. The South has experienced bitter cold, snow and ice this winter.
If the Earth is getting warmer, why's it so darn snowy and cold?
Are the U.S. winter extremes proof that global warming isn't happening or is a hoax, as some skeptics suggest? Or are the winter extremes a product of a warming atmosphere, as many climate change advocates assert?
Opinions about climate change vary greatly, even among experts in climate science.
There's no debating that it's been cold, especially in January.
According to Deke Arndt of the federal National Climatic Data Center, "January 2011 will rank among the coldest 20 percent of Januarys on record since 1895."
December brought the coldest temperatures on record to parts of South Florida, although the month averaged near normal for the nation as a whole.
There's also no debating that there's been plenty of snow. A record 36 inches fell in Central Park in January, crushing New York City's old record of 27.4 inches set in 1925. Snowfall records also fell last month elsewhere in the Northeast, while blizzards hit the Midwest and a major snow and ice storm swept through the Deep South.
"I believe the events we are seeing are entirely natural," said Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. "Persistent storminess in one location means someplace else is having unusually quiet weather. One of the reasons we know this is that our global precipitation measurements from satellites show that the total amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth remains almost exactly the same, year after year."
Spencer said global temperatures have been falling for about the past 12 months. "The global average is now approaching the long-term normal," he said.
Spencer is a skeptic of man-made global warming, noting on his website that climate changes occur with or without our help.
Even experts who have contributed to the United Nations' discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also believe this year's winter weather extremes cannot be directly attributed to large-scale climate changes.
Dennis Hartmann, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and future lead author of the IPCC's upcoming assessment, concurs.
"I don't think we have the capability to attribute one year's extreme event to greenhouse gas increases," he said. "If you have an unprecedented extreme event, or several of them, for which we have a good physical argument for why human-induced climate change is the cause, then I could see attribution of an extreme event to human activity. But this winter is probably not one of those."
There's no doubt that the debate about climate change, especially as it is related to human activity, will continue, but it will never be settled based on one season.
Of course, we don't hear from our favorite meteorologist, Punxsutawney Phil, until dawn Wednesday.
Thanks, Anon, I'm sure GlobalClimateScam.com (motto: "Exposing the truth about global warming hysteria") is a good, unbiased source of information about the climate and insights into the science of meteorology.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday introduced a measure aimed at repealing the national health-care overhaul as an amendment to the first Senate bill of the new Congress.
McConnell proposed the repeal measure as an amendment to a Federal Aviation Administration funding bill. The move came one day after a federal judge in Florida ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority by mandating insurance for nearly all Americans. A vote could come as early as Wednesday, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide.
The push for a vote on repealing the health-care law has picked up broad support among Senate Republicans. South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint announced on Monday afternoon that his bill calling for the full repeal of the health-care overhaul had won the support of all 47 Senate Republicans.
Unknown is how many Democrats will sign onto the bill, now that us has been declared unconstitutional.
"The Republicans obviously want to do something on health care, and so we want to get it over with very quickly," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
In addition to the full repeal amendment, a separate amendment sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) that would repeal the unpopular 1099 provision of the health-care law is also on the table this week.
As of late last week, a similar measure sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) had garnered the support of more than 60 senators, including 45 Republicans and 15 Democrats.
Other Republicans in Congress are moving ahead aggressively with their effort to overturn the health-care overhaul. Earlier Tuesday, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.) introduced legislation that would allow states to opt out of provisions of the national health care law including the employer mandate, individual insurance benefit mandates and Medicaid expansion.
Graham said that while the full repeal of the health-care law remains Senate Republicans' "number-one goal," the State Health Care Choice Act that he and Barrasso are proposing "takes the battle out of Washington to the states" and that if enough states ultimately opt out, it could be enough to render the national health-care law ineffective.
"Instead of requiring states to follow Obamacare's one-size-fits-all approach to health-care policy, our bill allows states to decide what works best for their citizens," Graham said at a Capitol news conference.
Barrasso hailed Monday's ruling by a Florida judge striking down the entire overhaul as "the second dagger into the heart of Obamacare" and said that his legislation "gives states the sovereignty" to pursue their own solutions.
McConnell took to the floor earlier Tuesday to renew his call for a vote on full repeal and noting that Republicans are united in their opposition to the health care overhaul.
"The importance of a repeal vote becomes more evident every day," McConnell said. "Americans view it as an important decision point -- a marker that shows we're serious about a return to limited government. On that point, it should be clear where Republicans stand. Every one of us voted against the bill. Every one of us voted for repeal after that. And this week, every Republican reaffirmed his or her commitment to doing it again."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will chair a hearing on the constitutionality of the national health-care law on Wednesday morning, two days after the Florida ruling.
The hearing, which will take place before the full Senate Judiciary Committee, will be the first-ever to examine the constitutionality of the health care law. Democrats have called Oregon Attorney General John Kroger and former solicitors general Walter Dellinger and Charles Fried to testify; Republicans have invited Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and attorney Michael Carvin.
The climate change skeptic is wrong:
NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record
Summer 2010 the second warmest on record, Arctic sea ice continues its 14-year decline
NOAA reports
"Global Highlights
For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.
The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.
The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.
The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average.
In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which influences temperature and precipitation patterns around the world. A moderate-to-strong El Niño at the beginning of the year transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong."
McConnell is wasting his time playing politics as usual. The people are sick of it. The people want the changes health care reform has brought. Nobody wants to go back to denying sick children health insurance because of their pre-exisiting conditions.
"The climate change skeptic is wrong"
really?
he's a principal research scientist at a major university
who are you?
"McConnell is wasting his time playing politics as usual. The people are sick of it."
really?
according to the RealClearPolitics.com average, Americans oppose Obamacare 47-40
of course, it would be higher except the average includes the outlier NY Times, the only poll that finds the public favors Obamacare
more reliable polls put the divide between those who favor and not at 20 points
"The people want the changes health care reform has brought."
apparently not
"Nobody wants to go back to denying sick children health insurance because of their pre-exisiting conditions."
obviously, no one wants sick children to not receive care
the organizations that help such kids would have a lot more resources if Democrats made charitable donations at anywhere near the rate Republicans do
still, sick children in America are not denied care because their parents don't have health insurance
"The aphorism "Act in haste, repent at leisure" never applied more aptly than it does to Obamacare.
Nancy Pelosi rushed through Obamacare, without allowing time to read the bill, by explaining: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Reading the bill produced last November's angry electorate.
Now, Obamacare is in critical condition.
On Monday, a Florida federal court delivered the latest blow to Obamacare, ruling that the statute is unconstitutional. It follows a similar decision from a Virginia federal court and the House of Representatives' vote to repeal the law. Monday's decision stretches out the negative news for a monumental piece of legislation hailed just a year ago as a great triumph.
Obamacare supporters should now appreciate the virtue of the Constitution's design to slow legislative changes. The Constitution is intended to create stability through reasoned deliberation. The process generally results in compromise and consensus. To the frustration of many, the structure of our constitutional democracy necessarily makes changing legislation much more difficult than it would be in a pure democracy.
The Constitution's framers anticipated that Congress and the president would sometimes thwart the Constitution's design for forcing deliberation. They therefore provided federal courts as a further protection against the power hungry. With this second federal court ruling against Obamacare, it increasingly seems that the health law may not survive when it reaches the Supreme Court.
One thing federal judges always do -- even if members of Congress do not -- is read the legislation brought before them."
"sick children in America are not denied care because their parents don't have health insurance"
In what reality do you exist?
Toothache Leads to [Prince George's County] Boy's Death
""Among children, dental services are the most needed service that they do not receive," says Judith Lave, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of Pittsburg, PA.
"I think it is probably the least covered of our health benefits across the nation," she adds."
Uninsured kids and adults are denied necessary medical treatment every day. Check out the second person to die because they were denied a needed transplant by Governor Jan Brewer's budget cutting death panel in AZ.
How high do you think the mercury will go today in DC? 50 degrees? 55?
"In what reality do you exist?
Toothache Leads to Boy's Death"
Obamacare doesn't cover dental health.
Good try.
"Uninsured kids and adults are denied necessary medical treatment every day. Check out the second person to die because they were denied a needed transplant by Governor Jan Brewer's budget cutting death panel in AZ."
It wasn't because they didn't have insurance.
Rahm Emanuel's brother has been appointed to decide when the chance of success of a procedure is high enough that it will be covered under Obamacare.
He is on record as a proponent of health rationing.
This will cause the denial of treatment for millions, including children. Already happens in countries with national health care.
You might call his little group a "death panel."
"How high do you think the mercury will go today in DC? 50 degrees? 55?"
I don't know if there's a pool but I've heard it will be in mid-50s.
Back down to low 30s tomorrow.
I guess that proves we need to tax carbon emmissions, huh?
btw, you may remember that McDonald's last year said they would have to cancel their employees' health insurance because Obamacare had raise the price of insurance premiums too high
Obama said no problem. McDonald's is exempted from Obamacare.
Since then, 733 employers have been exempted from Obamacare.
About a quarter are unions, Barry's best buddies.
Let's just admit Obamacare is a failure and get rid of it. A Federal Court has ruled it unconstitutional and ordered implementation halted. The House of Representatives has voted to repeal it. The majority of doctors says it will harm the quality of our healthcare. The majority of voters favor repeal. Most state governments are opposed to it. Businesses are saying they can't afford it. Obama is passing out unfair exemptions like lolipops.
The Senate has a chance to agree with the House and repeal this week. All it will take is a handful of Dems to read the tea leaves.
Then, what will Barry do?
Stare down the nations' courts and legislators and doctors and businesses and voters and say "I know better than anyone" by vetoing it?
Let's see.
It wasn't because they didn't have insurance.
Rahm Emanuel's brother has been appointed to decide when the chance of success of a procedure is high enough that it will be covered under Obamacare.
The decision to not pay for transplants for US citizens who are residents of Arizona and rely on Medicaid has nothing to do with Dr. Emanuel and everything to do with Jan Brewer.
Medicaid Cuts Killing Ariz. Transplant Patients: The State Cut Medicaid Benefits because of a Budget Crisis; Now People on a Transplant List are Dying
"A second person in Arizona has died while waiting for an organ transplant. Not because they couldn't find a donor but because state budget cuts took the patients off the transplant list....
"There's absolutely no way you can justify killing people to save really a little bit over a million dollars," says Ariz. Rep. Chad Campbell (D).
Campbell says cutting the transplant program is saving Arizona $1.4 million, or one-tenth of 1 percent of its $825 million budget deficit.
Ariz. governor Jan Brewer says Arizona is broke. "The state has only so much money and we can only provide so many optional kinds of care," she says."
The Treasury Department said Wednesday it has received $312.2 million from the sale of warrants it held in Citigroup Inc. The sale was the government's latest effort to recoup costs from the $700 billion financial bailout.
Treasury said that one group of the warrants was sold for $1.01 per warrant and a second group of warrants brought 26 cents per warrant. Treasury had set a minimum bid of 60 cents for the first group and 15 cents for the second group.
Treasury said with the warrant sale it has realized $12.3 billion in profits from the $45 billion in support it provided Citigroup during the height of the financial crisis beginning in the fall of 2008.
By purchasing the warrants, buyers will have the right to buy an equal amount of shares of Citigroup at a fixed price.
For the 255 million warrants designated as Group A warrants that went for $1.01, the fixed purchase price was set at $10.61. For the 210 million warrants designated as Group B warrants that went for 26 cents per warrant, the fixed purchase price was set at $17.85.
Citigroup stock closed Wednesday at $4.82. Over the past year, Citigroup shares have traded in a range of $3.11 to $5.15.
Citigroup received $45 billion in taxpayer support late in 2008 in one of the largest baiouts undertaken by the government as it struggled to contain the financial crisis.
The government has recouped all of the $45 billion in support it provided Citigroup through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Treasury's remaining interest in Citigroup consists of trust preferred securities with a principal value of $800 million. Those securities are being held by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to protect against possible losses on debt of Citigrup that is being guaranteed by the FDIC.
If the FDIC does not incur any losses on those guarantees, the $800 million in Citigroup securities will be turned over to Treasury, further boosting the government's return on its Citigroup investment.
"Our investment in Citigroup has produced a significant profit for taxpayers," Tim Massad, Treasury's acting assistant secretary for the bailout program, said in a statement. "As we exit our investments ... it's clear that the cost of the TARP program will be a fraction of what many had once feared during the depths of the crisis."
so, even with the profits from Bush's TARP plan, Obama is still running a trillion and a half record deficit
Obama is a detriment to America
"The Senate on Wednesday defeated a Republican-led effort to repeal the entire national health-care overhaul, with lawmakers voting strictly along party lines. The decision underscores the hurdle that the GOP faces in that Democratic-majority chamber as it tries to overturn the law.
All 50 Senate Democrats present and one independent voted against the repeal, while all 47 Republicans voted in favor. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) were not present. The measure was proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Republicans needed the support of 13 Democrats for the measure to move forward because of a Democratic-led procedural move that set up a 60-vote hurdle.
Democrats' unanimous opposition to the repeal came even though several vulnerable lawmakers up for re-election in 2012, including Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.), had come under pressure to support repeal.
While the full repeal measure fell short, a separate health-care amendment offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) sailed through the Senate with bipartisan support. The Stabenow proposal, which would repeal an unpopular tax-reporting provision of the law that opponents say overburdens small businesses, passed on an 81-to-17 vote. The House has not yet considered that proposal.
A third amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was defeated on a 44-to-54 vote. That amendment, which was offered shortly before Wednesday's proposals came to the floor, was similar to Stabenow's but would have paid for the change by ending tax breaks for oil companies.
All three amendments were offered to an unrelated bill on funding of the Federal Aviation Administration. They came two days after a federal judge in Florida struck down the entire health-care law. The legal challenge to the law is expected to be decided ultimately by the Supreme Court.
Senate Republican leaders pushed back against the idea that the vote was a symbolic one."
"The federal governments bailout program has earned the taxpayer nearly $35 billion in the last two years, The Associated Press said.
Income from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) rose by almost 17% through November compared with the estimate in October, the AP said.
Part of the extra income came from the government's ongoing sale of stock in Citigroup (C). The government sold off the last of its stock in the banking giant Tuesday, earning a $12 billion return on its $45 billion investment.
The TARP program, enacted under President George W. Bush and continued under President Obama, has been widely reviled by voters as using taxpayer money to protect the very wealthy.
In his State of the Union speech in January, Obama said that the bank bailouts were "about as popular as root canal."
In recent months, the estimated cost of the program has fallen, while projected income jumped. Besides the extra income from Citigroup, the Treasury has received dividends from the support provided to the former financing division of General Motors (GM).
Last month, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office cut its estimate of the projected losses from the bailout program to $25 billion, compared with a forecast of $109 billion in March.
The CBO pointed to smaller than expected costs for the bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG) and automakers GM and Chrysler as key factors in the lower cost."
http://srph.it/eeDoHl
and, yet, we're still projecting a record deficit of 1.5 trillion
the Dems must go
"Senate Republican leaders pushed back against the idea that the vote was a symbolic one."
how can a motion that lost by one vote be considered symbolic?
Republicans worked up to the end to convince Dems not to commit political suicide by voting against the Constitution
if had passed, there is good reason to believe Obama wouldn't have the nerve to buck Congress, the Courts and the People by vetoing
and, obviously, this is not the end of the road
"and, yet, we're still projecting a record deficit of 1.5 trillion"
That's right. Somebody's got to pay for Bush's unfunded Medicare prescription donut hole along with those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were paid for with borrowed money while we were told "deficits don't matter." It turns out deficits do matter but they only matter to the GOP when a Democrat is in the White House. Maybe you noticed the promised Iraqi oil revenues that were going to pay for the Iraq war didn't pan out as Bush & Company predicted they would. Somebody's got to give money to states to pay their teachers, firemen, and cops -- private industry sure doesn't want to pay for any of that nor does private industry apparently want to create jobs. They'd rather sit on their huge unspent profits that they are free to spend - undisclosed - on political campaigns of those candidates who never met a regulation to protect "we the people" vs. corporate big wigs they could support.
"Since the government began aggressively issuing offshore drilling permits under President Reagan, the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, including exemptions from royalty payments — the fees due when a company extracts resources from U.S. government property."
Tax breaks for and free giveaways of our natural resources to highly profitable oil companies have got to end. All profitable companies should pay taxes on their profits "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, which states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
"Somebody's got to pay for Bush's unfunded Medicare prescription donut hole along with those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"
have you seen the average deficits while Bush was President?
he was able to do that without a trillion and a half dollar deficit
as a matter of fact, despite all the bellyaching by Dems, Bush's deficits were de minimis compared to Obama's
"Somebody's got to give money to states to pay their teachers, firemen, and cops"
the states already tax their citizens for those services
"private industry sure doesn't want to pay for any of that nor does private industry apparently want to create jobs"
actually, private industry has always created jobs in America
"They'd rather sit on their huge unspent profits that they are free to spend - undisclosed - on political campaigns of those candidates who never met a regulation to protect "we the people" vs. corporate big wigs they could support."
we are a capitalist country with freedom of speech
companies are supposed to try to maximize their profits
that's to the benefit of everyone
"Tax breaks for and free giveaways of our natural resources to highly profitable oil companies have got to end. All profitable companies should pay taxes on their profits"
we give companies tax breaks so they'll behave as we want
it's one of the ways government controls them
the best option would be to eliminate the corporate tax all together
the owners of the companies pay tax when they receive profits
why should the entities also pay taxes?
it's double taxation on success
we are penalizing success and then wondering why there isn't more of it
Obama had it right when he extended the Bush tax cuts for the super rich, tacitly admitting that Bush was right all along
if he wants to be re-elected, he'll need to continue in that direction
learn a lesson from Bill Clinton
he had huge deficits and had vetoed welfare reform twice before his first mid-term election
when he lost, like Obama did, he starting saying "yes sir" to Newt Gingrich, signed welfare reform, resulting in surpluses and got all the credit
if Barry would cooperate, we could give him a similar deal
he just has to say "yes sir" to John Boehner
"how can a motion that lost by one vote be considered symbolic?"
47-51 is not a one vote difference. You are not very good with numbers. "Math class is tough!"
"we are a capitalist country with freedom of speech
companies are supposed to try to maximize their profits
that's to the benefit of everyone"
So I guess we can go back to the days when there were no child labor laws. That way we can better help "companies maximize their profits." Why should "companies" care if kids get educated at school or at the textile mill? Who cares what parents think, obviously they don't produce jobs like "companies" do.
"The National Child Labor Committee, an organization dedicated to the abolition of all child labor, was formed in 1904. By publishing information on the lives and working conditions of young workers, it helped to mobilize popular support for state-level child labor laws. These laws were often paired with compulsory education laws which were designed to keep children in school and out of the paid labor market until a specified age (usually 12, 14, or 16 years.)
In 1914 the Arkansas state Federation of Labor placed a child welfare initiative on the ballot prohibiting child labor, which the voters passed.
In 1916, the NCLC and the National Consumers League successfully pressured the US Congress to pass the Keating-Owen Act, the first federal child labor law. However, the US Supreme Court struck down the law two years later in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), declaring that the law violated a child's right to contract his or her own labor. In 1924, Congress attempted to pass a constitutional amendment that would authorize a national child labor law. This measure was blocked, and the bill was eventually dropped.
It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children. In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor."
"47-51 is not a one vote difference."
sure it is
Keep looking at it and the picture will pop out.
"So I guess we can go back to the days when there were no child labor laws."
I wouldn't do that and nothing I said would lead any sane person to believe I would.
My position is that in a free country, corporations should be free to do what they want with their lawfully made gains.
The moron who wrote this:
"private industry sure doesn't want to pay for any of that nor does private industry apparently want to create jobs. They'd rather sit on their huge unspent profits that they are free to spend - undisclosed - on political campaigns of those candidates who never met a regulation to protect "we the people" vs. corporate big wigs they could support"
apparently believes corporations are accountable to the government as what they use their profits for
doesn't sound like freedom to me
But you think giving a corporation the unlimited right to contribute as much money as they want to without disclosing it is freedom. So tell us Anon, why should *only* corporations be given the right do that by the Supreme Court and not actual voting citizens?
Post a Comment
<< Home