Democrat: Washington Redskins' Name 'a Moral Issue

JUST ANOTHER DISTRACTION ISSUE TO AVOID TALKING ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY

(CNSNews.com) - Delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D.-American Samoa) took to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday to say that the name of the Washington Redskins football team was a “moral issue.”

Faleomavaega said, “It is not even about sports. This is a moral issue that reaches far back to the time when Native Americans were not only considered outcasts but deemed enemies, rebels and traitors by the colonial government. The only sporting involved was the game of hunting and killing Indians like animals for money.”

“The origin of term ‘Redskin’, Mr. Speaker, is commonly attributed to the historical act of not only killing Native Americans, but also cutting off certain body parts and scalping. Even scalping heads of women and children.”

Faleomavaega was critical of Redskins owner Dan Snyder, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh on the issue.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Record 8.9 Million Workers Now on Disability Benefits Read More At Investor's Business Daily

More than 76,000 workers went on the federal government's disability program in July, according to the latest data from the Social Security administration, bringing the total number of new enrollees this year to 534,038.

Although that is down somewhat from the same month last year, enrollment in the Social Security Disability Insurance program remains sharply higher than it has been historically. Since 2009, an average of about 1 million workers have gone on SSDI annually — a 31% increase from the average enrollment over the previous 10 years.

As a result, a record 8.9 million workers are now collecting disability benefits, which is up 15% since the recovery officially started in mid-2009.

Today, there are fewer than 13 Americans working in private sector jobs for each worker on disability. That's down from 31 workers per disabled in 1990.

At the same time, the SSDI program is heading rapidly toward insolvency. At current spending and income rates, the program's trust fund will become insolvent by 2016 — less than 2-1/2 years from now.

Unless the program is reformed, that would result in sharp benefit cuts for current beneficiaries, a fact the Congressional Budget Office has been warning about for years.

The rapid increase in workers on disability comes despite the fact that jobs are getting less physically taxing and despite advances in treatments for physical and mental health problems.

Via: Investors Business Daily

Continue Reading....

Obama not even pretending he has legal authority to delay the ObamaCare employer mandate

Via Byron York, an amazing bit buried in the NYT’s interview with The One after his economy-speech snooze last week. This is as close as you’ll ever get to seeing a pol answer a reporter’s question with “because I said so”:

NYT: People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally — to delay the employer mandate. Did you consult with your lawyer?

MR. OBAMA: Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security –

NYT: No, but specifically –

MR. OBAMA: — but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.I am concerned about the folks who I spoke to today who are working really hard, are trying to figure out how they can send their kids to college, are trying to make sure that they can save for their retirement. And if I can take steps on their behalf, then I’m going to do so. And I would hope that more and more of Congress will say, you know what, since that’s our primary focus, we’re willing to work with you to advance those ideals. But I’m not just going to sit back if the only message from some of these folks is no on everything, and sit around and twiddle my thumbs for the next 1,200 days.

Evidently if Congress doesn’t do what he wants, he enjoys legal authority under the Doin’ Good For The People Clause of the Constitution to do it himself. That’s not the first time he’s invoked that clause either; remember, he decided to continue his intervention in Libya even though his own lawyers concluded that he had no power to do so under the War Powers Act.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading....

Businesses enlist Congress in fight against California laws

California Regulations SO BAD Even Washington Calls Them Excessive

WASHINGTON — California has a reputation for having some of the nation's most aggressive rules on workplace safety, consumer protection and environmental quality — regulations that force companies to make costly adjustments to the way they do business worldwide.

Now some of those companies, banking on congressional gridlock and sympathetic Republican leaders in the House, are fighting back. And officials in Sacramento worry that some of the state's landmark laws may be in danger.

At the top of their worry list is a measure with bipartisan support that would strengthen federal environmental laws on dangerous chemicals, but at the price of rolling back a pioneering California law that tries to protect consumers from the most toxic materials. State leaders are scrambling to fend off the bill, which they say is written so broadly that it also could undermine California's clean water laws and its effort to combat global warming.

"We are alarmed," said Debbie Raphael, director of the state Department of Toxic Substances Control. "We have programs in place that are very effective and have moved the marketplace to benefit not just California but the entire world. This … puts all that at risk."

The U.S. government has the power to block the laws of California or any other state if the statutes have an impact on interstate commerce or otherwise interfere with federal authority. But Washington has tended to do that sparingly. Democrats there typically don't have a problem with the state's liberal policies, and Republicans have preferred to avoid infringing on states' rights.

But Republicans have taken up the argument that they need to curb such regulatory trailblazing to protect the rights of other states, particularly deep-red ones that don't want their industries faced with either following California's rules or being cut off from the country's biggest market. They argue that the state's regulations have gotten more aggressive. State officials say a more conservative Republican Party now puts business interests ahead of protecting states from Washington's authority.

Via: Los Angeles Times

Continue Reading....