The Green Party of New Jersey (GPNJ) will be holding its 16th annual state convention, Saturday, March 17, 9:00 a.m.- 4:30 p.m., at the Rutgers Labor Education Center in New Brunswick.
The convention will hear from all three candidates seeking the Green Party presidential nomination: Roseanne Barr and Kent Mesplay (via Skype) and Jill Stein (in [...]
Green Party Watch
From the Toledo Free Press:
Running for any seat in the Green Party is more like an obstacle course than a race.
First, you need to gather signatures to appear on the ballot. That number depends on what the desired seat is, but for the U.S. Senate election you’d need at least 500. (Major parties [...]
Green Party Watch
Monday evening the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Senate Bill 3, the Employment Opportunity Act, sponsored by Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora. The Act prohibits pre-employment credit checks that some companies use to screen candidates. Sponsors of the bill say such credit checks can prevent people with low credit scores from finding employment. The bill passed 4-3 on a party line vote.
“Credit scores were never intended to be used in hiring practices,” Carroll said in a statement released after the bill made it through committee. “Tying credit scores with employment opportunity creates a vicious circle that unfairly punishes struggling Coloradans. We should be doing everything in our power to get citizens back to work, and this legislation ensures that we are removing unnecessary punitive barriers and helping citizens get back on their feet.”
Senate Bill 3 prohibits employers from using credit report information unless it is directly related to the position for which a candidate is applying, such as a money or asset management role. If the employer decides not to hire an individual based on information from their credit report, they must disclose this to the applicant. Employers found in violation of this law would be subject to civil penalty. Seven other states have enacted similar laws to prevent credit report discrimination.
Approximately 25.5 percent of Americans currently have poor credit compared with a historical average of 15 percent, and it is estimated that up to 60 percent of employers currently run credit checks on prospective employees.
The bill will now be considered by the full Senate. The bill is sponsored in the House by Rep. Randy Fischer, R-Fort Collins. Republicans who voted against the bill in committee did not quickly return phone calls seeking comment.
If anyone thought President Obama’s jobs bill was going to slide through the Senate before hitting trouble in the House, they were wrong. The Senate Tuesday couldn’t get enough support even for a debate.
With 60 votes needed to open debate, the measure received 50.
From The Hill:
Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, supported (Harry) Reid’s bid to begin debate on Obama’s jobs package but voiced misgivings over its substance.
“The bottom line here is that I don’t believe the potential in this act for creating jobs justifies adding another 0 billion to our almost trillion national debt,” Lieberman said.
“In fact, I think the most important thing we can do to improve our economy, reduce unemployment [and] create jobs is to bring our national debt under control.”
Lieberman endorsed the deficit-reduction plan crafted by the fiscal commission headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. He said he would vote against Obama’s jobs package as a whole if it came to a yes-or-no vote.
Senior White House officials said Tuesday they would work with Senate Democrats to divide the bill into pieces that would be more likely to pass.
Senator Mark Udall released this statement after the vote:
“President Obama’s proposal included reasonable ideas from both sides of the aisle to get Americans back to work and solidify our economic recovery. And it deserved to be taken seriously. I hoped that my colleagues in the Senate would listen to our constituents and come together to work out our differences. I’m disappointed they dismissed the proposal out of hand without even discussing its merits. We owed it to the American people to give the details in the proposal real reflection and open debate, not an ill-considered death by Senate rules.
“There were parts of the president’s proposal with which I didn’t personally agree, but I voted to consider the bill because our economy needs solutions, not partisan games. My office received an overwhelming number of telephone calls, emails and social media messages asking me to bridge the partisan divide for Coloradans who are struggling to find jobs. I’ll continue to work with my colleagues on any plan that creates jobs and gets our economy back on track.”
Before the vote, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Rick Palacio said this:
“Republicans campaigned on jobs last year, but we have yet to see any comprehensive plan from the GOP to put Americans back to work. Their inaction has gone on for too long, and today they can finally contribute to the effort to put Americans back to work. Coloradans looking for work can’t wait any longer.”
The U.S. House late today narrowly passed a debt-ceiling bill without a single Democratic vote, only to see the Senate quickly turn around and reject the Republican plan.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Colorado’s House delegation split along party lines, with the four Republicans voting in favor of the modified House Speaker John Boehner plan and all three Democrats rejecting it. The House vote was 218-210. The Senate rejected the bill 59-41.
Colorado’s senior congresswoman, Democrat Diana DeGette, issued the following statement on the Republican’s plan, which included a balanced budget amendment to the constitution in order to appease conservative GOP members, 22 of whom still voted against the bill:
“As we stand four days away from the first default in our nation’s history, the Republican bill passed today may raise the debt ceiling for the near future, but it is an imbalanced approach to deficit reduction that disproportionately punishes the most vulnerable Americans, and, with its untenable balanced budget amendment timeline, sets the stage for likely default in six months. That timetable systematically continues the blanket of uncertainty this debate has placed over our economy, virtually ensuring a downgrade to the U.S. credit rating and an economic crisis for our nation.
“With the markets already reacting to the gridlock in Washington, it is time to pay our bills, avoid a default crisis that would send interest rates skyrocketing, and then focus on getting our fiscal house in order. We must reduce our deficit, pay down our debt, and ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. These issues deserve balanced and thoughtful solutions; not to be held hostage to preserving the full faith and credit of the U.S.”
Colorado’s senior Republic congressman, Doug Lamborn, issued this statement after his yes vote:
“This is not a perfect plan, but it is a sincere, honest effort to fundamentally change the way Washington does business. It ensures that the federal government will meet all its financial obligations in the short term. Under this plan, every government payment would go out on time. But, down the road, it calls for additional spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment before Congress will raise the debt ceiling a second time.
“I would prefer deeper spending cuts. But I am glad for the possibility of putting more fiscal discipline for Congress into the Constitution. This is the only way we can control spending and make sure that the American dream survives for our children and grandchildren.
“This is the second time in 10 days that House Republicans have sent to the Senate a common-sense plan for restoring our nation’s fiscal strength. I urge our Senators to work with us in a bipartisan effort to solve our overspending problem.”
From an article published on BallotAccess.org on June 24th, 2011:
On June 23, the Ohio Senate passed HB 194, the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill. As mentioned earlier, it moves the primary in presidential years from March to May, and it moves the petition deadline for new party petitions from 120 days before the primary to 90 days before the primary. Although this is obviously better than having a deadline of November of the year before the election, it still gives Ohio an unconstitutionally early petition deadline of early February.
The bill is not entirely through the legislature. The Senate amended some unrelated aspects, and so it must go back to the House for concurrence. That will happen on June 27 at the earliest.
Assuming the bill is signed into law in the next two weeks, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted will probably rule that the new law is valid, and that therefore the four minor parties that were on the ballot in 2008 and 2010 (Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Socialist) are no longer ballot-qualified. This is not certain, however. A new lawsuit is extremely likely; the new lawsuit will argue that the new law is just as unconstitutional as the old law.
********************************
Read the rest of the article, with comments, here.
As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean used a 50 state stragedy to give Democrats contol of the House by huge margins, the Senate by 9 and the White House. After such a performance you would think Dean would be a shoe in to continue to function in that position.
Enter newly elected President Barack Obama to appoint his old friend Tim Kaine as the new Chairman of the D.N.C. and it is all down hill from there. Tim oversaw the stragedy for a mid term election that reversed the House and left it in Republican control by a wide and embarrising margin. A loss of seats like nothing seen in modern times. Tim’s brillance would have delivered the Senate to the Republicans except for some really poor candidates being chosen by the GOP.
Now as Jim Webb announces his retirement after one term in the Senate enter President Obama again as he selects and pressures his old friend Tim Kaine to run for that Senate seat. I don’t want to rain on anybodies parade but Tim Kaine will most likely be a private citizen when the votes are counted for that Senate race.
Obama should let the state party recruit it own candidate and distance himself from the stigma of picking losers.
Here’s what Obama had to say about Dean. “We are in a strong position to rebuild a Democratic Party committed to these principles because of the outstanding work of its current chairman,” Mr. Obama said, adding. “Having steered the Democratic Party through two successful elections, Howard deserves enormous credit for helping usher in a new era in Washington.” Obama continued “He(Dean) launched a 50-state strategy that made Democrats competitive in places they had
not been in years, working with my chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to give Democrats a majority in the House for the first time in over a decade.”
Then Obama turned the reins of the D.N.C over to Kaine and the rest is history. All that Howad Dean had built for the Democratic Party blew away like dry leaves in a stiff wind under the control of Tim Kaine. If Kaine had a mule I could mistake him for Creigh Deeds.
As Democrats we will vote for Kaine because we have no where else to go.
After taking over the D.N.C. Kains first act was to dismiss the 183 DNC field organizers and terminate the 50 State Strategy. With Kaine’s new direction Democrats were suddenly losing elections.
For four years under Howard Dean the Democratic National Committee funded a 50 state strategy which paid for DNC
field organizers on the ground in every state. These organizers built local and county organizations which assisted candidates at every level. I have no idea what stragedy Kaine used but whatever it was it was a complete failure.
Tim Kaine, David Axelrod, and Rahm Emmanuel (Obama’s team of friends) killed the Dean stragedy and nothing has worked right since.
Now Tim will run for the open Senate seat.
Political News
And Now To
Unions Get More Selective With Their Money
It is no secret that Unions donate heavily to Democrats and it is also no secret Democrats do dam little for the money. Democrats are weak in the knee and lacking in spine and Unions are starting to redirect the money to local elections where the candidates have the courage to stand up for workers values. If and when the House and Senate Democrats develop the spine to stand up and fight for workers the money will return. Until the situation corrects itself there will be no more money thrown down a rat hole.
Democrats receive 90 percent or more from ActBlue, American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees, American Assn for Justice, Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, National Education Assn, Laborers Union, Teamsters Union, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America, United Auto Workers, Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, EMILY’s List, AFL-CIO, Sheet Metal Workers Union, Plumbers & Pipefitters Union, United Steelworkers, Ironworkers Union, American Postal Workers Union, Human Rights Campaign, Saban Capital Group, Transport Workers Union, National Cmte for an Effective Congress, Amalgamated Transit Union.
This oversight of Union Funds should have happened long ago when politicians first got lazy and worthless and started concentrating on their own re-elections and neglected the people’s needs.
Republicans receive 90 percent or more from Club for Growth, Associated Builders & Contractors, Amway/Alticor Inc, National Fedn of Independent Business. Republicans stand up for and fight the battles of the people they receive donations from.
A wake up call is being directed to Democrats, your free ride is over.
More News
The House Republican budget ends Medicare and doubles the costs to seniors.
Ryan’s Budget Attempts to End Medicare and Shift Costs to Seniors
Medicare as we know it would end for new beneficiaries in 2022 under the House Republican budget proposal. It would be replaced with a government voucher that would be paid directly to private insurance companies. This system would double costs to seniors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, concluded that “most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.”
Seniors would pay more for two reasons. First, the Ryan plan forces future beneficiaries out of the traditional Medicare plan into a more expensive private plan. In 2022 65-year-olds would be forced to pay twice as much for care than they would under Medicare: ,500 compared to ,150. The same holds true
for 65-year-olds in 2030. They would be forced to pay ,713 compared to ,138 under Medicare.
Second, the House Republican plan forces seniors to pay a larger share of their health costs over time since the value of the voucher in the House Republican budget plan increases at a slower rate than
medical costs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Ryan proposal calls for 65-year-olds to contribute ,513 of the estimated ,513 total cost of their health care in 2022, including premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, or 61 percent. They are expected to pay ,713 of the ,460 in total costs in 2030, or 68 percent .
In other words, the House Republican budget proposal does not control health care costs. It just shifts them on to seniors.
Rep. Ryan claims that under his plan seniors will be enrolled in the same plan members of Congress and federal employees receive. This is not accurate. Federal employees receive a “consistent level” of contributions to health costs. Under Rep. Ryan’s plan the government voucher would not keep pace with increases in medical costs, meaning seniors would be forced to pay more of the cost.
According to the Office of Personnel Management: The Government’s share of premiums paid is set by law. Amendments to the FEHB law under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, approved August 5, 1997) authorized a new formula for calculating the Government contribution effective with the contract year that begins in January 1999. This formula is
known as the “Fair Share” formula because it will maintain a consistent level of Government contributions, as a percentage of total program costs, regardless of which health plan enrollees elect.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) made this very same point in a letter to his colleagues: Health care vouchers for seniors will be calculated in advance, and not based on the actual cost of premium increases—meaning that every year as premiums go up, seniors will be stuck paying a greater portion of the bill. This is not the case for Members of Congress. When the plan takes effect in 2022,
the average senior would receive ,000 to buy insurance. Plans for Members of Congress cost ,012in 2010. What kind of health care plan will ,000 buy in 2022 for our sickest and oldest seniors, when 00 can’t buy a plan for a Member of Congress today?
Rep. Ryan repeatedly tries to distinguish his Medicare proposal, which he calls “premium support,” or government support indexed to pay a constant share of average health care costs, from a voucher plan, or government support tied to a price index. His proposal is a voucher to private insurance companies, plain
and simple, and he himself essentially concedes that point. And former and current proponents of “premium support” agree.
Alice Rivlin, the former Office of Management and Budget director under President Bill Clinton, worked with Rep. Ryan on a deficit reduction proposal and has supported “premium support” in the past. But Rivlin said she could not support the Medicare proposal because it eliminated the traditional Medicare choice and lowered the rate of growth of the Medicare voucher beyond what is “defensible.”
Henry Aaron, a health economist and co-founder of the “premium support” concept, challenges the arbitrary and draconian growth rate of Rep. Ryan’s proposed voucher and has moved away from the “premium support” concept for three reasons.
First, he finds little reason to believe there are adequate regulations and safeguards to ensure seniors make informed choices.
Second, he believes the gains from choosing among insurance have been exaggerated.
And third, the Affordable Care Act now authorizes Medicare to use its purchasing power to spur delivery reforms, which he believes is the right direction to go.
Conclusion
The House Republican budget plan is another conservative attempt to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with a voucher paid to private insurance companies. The plan forces future seniors into a more expensive private plan in 2022, doubling the cost to seniors. The Republican budget plan lowers federal Medicare costs by shifting more of the burden on to seniors. That burden becomes larger over time since the value of the voucher does not keep pace with the increase in health care costs.
While conservatives may celebrate the House Republican budget for pursuing their ideological agenda, the real consequences of this proposal will be most felt by our seniors.
Don’t let the Republicans kill Medicare.
For nearly 50 years, Medicare has been a cornerstone of our nation’s commitment to our seniors, and along with Social Security, an invaluable tool for keeping them from falling into poverty.
And now the Republican Party wants to kill it.
Led by Representative Paul Ryan (aka, “Privatizing Ryan”), the party is pushing to eliminate Medicare as we know it, and replace it with a ludicrous privatized system where seniors are given vouchers to try to buy coverage from private, for-profit insurance companies. The very same companies that have over and over again denied coverage to senior citizens.
Medicare as we know it would end for new beneficiaries in 2022 under the House Republican budget proposal. It would be replaced with a government voucher that would be paid directly to private insurance companies. This system would double costs to seniors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, concluded that “most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.”
Don’t let them kill Medicare. Don’t let them rip a gaping hole in the senior safety net. Write Congress today, and demand that your officials pledge to support Medicare — not destroy it.
Make no mistake about it — this plan would end Medicare as we know it. It would take a system where seniors are guaranteed coverage, and replace it with one where they would be at the mercy of for-profit companies.
The worst part? For many seniors, these vouchers wouldn’t be anywhere close to enough to purchase coverage. Many would simply go without out insurance, and have no way of paying for health care.
Ironically, the very same Republicans that spread lies about “death panels” are now the ones essentially advocating a system of de facto death panels. Instead of addressing the real causes of high health care costs, they are trying to deny care to those least able to afford it.
And shockingly, some Democrats are indicating they might get on board with this.
Don’t let them rip a gaping hole in the senior safety net. Write Congress today, and demand that your officials pledge to support Medicare — not kill it.
World News
Next
In the clearest legislative response yet to the events unfolding in Egypt, the Senate has gone on record joining the chorus of those seeking a quick ouster of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
The Senate on Thursday approved a bipartisan resolution calling on Egypt to begin the transition to a democratic political system. The resolution was put forward by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“I strongly support Senator Kerry and Senator McCain’s bipartisan resolution which passed the Senate tonight. The resolution calls on President Mubarak to immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system, including the transfer of power to an inclusive interim caretaker government and to enact reforms to hold free, fair, and internationally credible elections,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says in a statement released after the vote.
Thousands of Egyptian demonstrators have swarmed Tahrir Square for more than a week, seeking an immediate end to Mubarak’s repressive 30-year rule of the Middle Eastern nation. Mubarak, however, has resisted an immediate departure. Officials in the highest levels of the Obama administration also are pushing for Mubarak to relinquish power. Vice President Biden and others reportedly are seeking a deal in Eqypt in which Mubarak’s newly appointed vice president would take over in a caretaker capacity in coalition with opposition groups.
Egyptian organizers of the anti-Mubarak protests have dubbed Friday a “Day of Departure.”
Until the passage of the Senate’s Thursday resolution, Kerry and a few other senators had spoken out individually about the pro-democracy demonstrations that have engulfed Cairo and other Egyptian cities, but the U.S. Congress had taken no unified action.
In his statement, Reid also condemned the violence that overtook the demonstrations in recent days, in which journalists and Egyptian and foreign human rights workers were attacked and rounded up in detention.
“I condemn the recent violence and will stand with the Egyptian people as they demand the opportunities and rights that all citizens deserve. I am also concerned about reports that foreign journalists have been intimidated, targeted, and detained and this resolution makes it clear that the Senate believes in freedom of press in Egypt,” Reid says. “The Egyptian people have sent a clear message that it is time for change. The Senate heard that message and we will continue support the people of Egypt as they determine their future.”
The publisher of the news site On The Hill, Scott Nance has covered Congress and the federal government for more than a decade.
According to the Stamford Times, Rolf Maurer of the Connecticut Green Party failed to get enough signatures to appear as a balloted candidate for the Feb 22 special election to fill a vacant seat on the Connecticut State Senate. He will instead be running as a write in candidate:
Maurer, who ran for Stamford mayor [...]
Green Party Watch
Read the full thing at Socialist Webzine:
Supporters of the Dan La Botz, Socialist for Senate campaign of 2010 met in Columbus, Ohio over the weekend to found a new organization and launch a campaign to fight for jobs and public services in Ohio— they also pledged to resist the policies of Republic Governor-elect John Kasich. Dan La Botz was the Socialist Party candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio in November 2010 and received 25,000 votes.
The 23 labor and movement activists from cities throughout Ohio created the Buckeye Socialist Network (there will soon be a BuckeyeSocialist.org website). The Network’s first campaign is called DEFEND OHIO and will focus on defending public employees’ jobs and public services.
“Governor Kasich has unleashed a class war in Ohio,” said Dan La Botz. “And we intend to fight back. Kasich’s inauguration is the ideal occasion for Ohio’s working people to protest in at the Capital in Columbus and to show the governor that he is going to face four years of fierce resistance by unions and social movements.”