[BREAKING] OPM Announces More Than 21 Million Affected by Second Data Breach

More than 21 million Social Security numbers were compromised in a breach that affected a database of sensitive information on federal employees held by the Office of Personnel Management, the agency announced Thursday.

That number is in addition to the 4.2 million social security numbers that were compromised in another data breach at OPM that was made public in June.

Of the 21.5 million records that were stolen, 19.7 million belonged to individuals who had undergone background investigation, OPM said. The remaining 1.8 million records belonged to other individuals, mostly applicants' families.

The records that were compromised include detailed, sensitive information about the individuals, including fingerprint data. OPM says 1.1 million compromised files included fingerprints.

Beyond the fingerprints and Social Security numbers, some of the files in the compromised database included "residency and educational history; employment history; information about immediate family and other personal and business acquaintances; health, criminal and financial history; and other details," OPM said.

Some records included "findings from interviews conducted by background investigators," and some included the usernames and passwords that applicants used to fill out investigation forms. And although separate systems that store health, financial, and payroll information do not appear to have been compromised, the agency says some mental health and financial information is included in the security clearance files that were affected by the hack.

This data breach, which officials have privately linked to China, began in May 2014, according to OPM Director Katherine Archuleta's testimony before Congress. It was not discovered until May 2015.

A security update applied by OPM and the Department of Homeland Security in January 2015 ended the bulk of the data extraction, according to congressional testimony from Andy Ozment, assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications at DHS, even though the breach would not be discovered for months.

An OPM statement said that individuals who underwent background investigations in or after the year 2000 are "highly likely" to have had their information compromised in the breach. (This includes both new applicants and employees that were subject to a "periodic reinvestigation" during that time.) But those who were investigated before 2000 may also have been affected.

News of the second intrusion was first reported in June and was described as a potentially devastating heist of government data, as hackers seized extensive security-clearance information intelligence and military personnel. OPM said at the time that it became aware of the second hack while investigating the smaller breach that affected 4.2 million, which was disclosed earlier in June.

The size of the breach exceeds most of the estimates previously reported in various media outlets, including CNN, which said last month that the FBI believed 18 million people had been affected by the hack.

The personnel agency said Thursday that it has not seen any indication that the stolen information has been "misused" or otherwise disseminated.

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading....

America, the Beautiful

I have picked up the vibe that even some millennial white conservative interviewers think it a bit weird (uncle Tom-ish) that I do not harbor at least a slight resentment against whites and America. The foundation of public school education is America sucks; having screwed over everyone from Native-Americans, to women, blacks, and every other minority.

As a black man in my sixties, yes, I have encountered racism. But for the most part, whites and America have been extremely good to me.

When I was a boy in the hood of Baltimore, several white politicians awarded me scholarships to pursue my dream of becoming a graphic artist. During and after college several so-called “evil white men” according to a NY Times article, employed me, treated me well, and furthered my career.

And yet, when I say I love my country and am proud to be an American, Leftists/Democrats look at me cross-eyed, accuse me of disloyalty to my race. I am supposed to be mad, feel resentful and victimized. Sorry, but I can't go there, embracing hate and a victim mindset.

Leftist/Democrat actress Janeane Garofalo said phenomenally successful proud American blacks Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must be suffering with Stockholm syndrome. Process that for a moment folks.

In typical Leftist arrogance, Garofalo who claims to be an advocate for black empowerment, dislikes and even persecutes self-motivated blacks who successfully achieved their American Dream. How dare they achieve success without her beloved big government lowered standards or providing special concessions due to race. Obviously, Ms. Garafalo has a problem with such “uppity blacks” who do not want or need her foul-smelling racist superiority shrouded in faux compassion. Wouldn't a true advocate for blacks celebrate the achievements of Herman Cain and Justice Thomas?

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Law Prof.: Obama’s Climate Agenda Is About Changing The Constitution

President Barack Obama’s push to unilaterally commit the United States to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years is about changing the constitutional system that similarly hampered former President Bill Clinton’s global warming goals, according to a law professor.

In a congressional hearing Thursday, George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin told lawmakers that Obama’s argument that he unilaterally commit the U.S. to a United Nations agreement without Senate ratification was “a real change in our Constitution.”

“So, now we’re going to have some body, in some entity, in some foreign country that’s going to be directing us?” Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions asked Rabkin during Thursday’s hearing on Obama’s emissions-reduction promise to the United Nations.

“We have certain background assumptions about how our government is supposed to work, that’s why we have a Constitution,” Rabkin responded.

“And what this is fundamentally about is saying, ‘ah, that’s old-fashioned, forget that, that didn’t work for [President Bill] Clinton– we’re moving forward with something different which the president gets to commit us,’” Rabkin added. “That’s a real change in our Constitution.”

Late last year, Obama committed the U.S. to cut CO2 emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025. Obama made the pledge in conjunction with China’s government, which promised to merely peak its CO2 emissions by 2030. Republicans immediately came out against Obama’s pledge, saying it was unworkable and they wouldn’t ratify it.

The threat of Senate opposition successfully scared Clinton into abandoning his plan to get lawmakers to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the 1990s, but the Obama administration is arguing its international climate pledge doesn’t even need congressional approval.

The U.S. submitted a document to the UN last year that suggested a “bifurcated approach” to a deal on global warming. The president says it is not a treaty the Senate needs to ratify, as it requires every country to submit individual CO2-reduction promises they will use domestic policies to achieve.

Obama wants to make signing a global climate deal part of his presidential legacy, but knows such an agreement would never be ratified by a Republican-controlled Senate. Therefore, the administration is doing everything it can to argue a UN deal would not need lawmakers’ approval.

Here’s the problem, though: Any promise made by Obama to the international community on this scale would likely need to be ratified by the Senate in order to be considered a treaty, according to Rabkin.

“The word treaty is usually reserved for things that are ratified by the Senate,” he told lawmakers.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

House Dems want Medicaid to cover abortion

House Democrats are renewing their attack on the Hyde Amendment, the controversial budget provision that bars federal funds from paying for abortions.

Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Diana DeGette (D-Col.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would require Medicaid to cover abortion services – currently banned under the Hyde Amendment.

The legislation, the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Woman Act, is backed by dozens of women's health groups, who say it will help reduce unplanned pregnancies. About 65 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors.

Under current law, women enrolled in Medicaid, the government’s low-income insurance program, are not covered for abortion. The Hyde Amendment, though not part of a permanent law, has been attached to appropriations bills since 1976.

The bill was unveiled Wednesday at a packed press conference at the House Triangle, where dozens of supporters gathered with posters.

“Henry Hyde and others said, 'Well if we can’t stop people from making their own moral decisions ... we will do it financially. Through the Hyde Amendment, we will say to low income women, you can’t use your health insurance for abortions because we say it’s wrong,'” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told the crowd.

"Today we are fighting back against that moral arrogance."

The effort to undermine the Hyde Amendment has been led by a coalition called All Above All, which includes Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union. 

“For far too long, this country has penalized low-income women seeking abortion — forcing those who have the least to pay the most in order to access safe, legal care,” Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, wrote in a statement Wednesday.

About 56 percent of voters support the bill, according to the group’s polling.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Mark Levin: 'We’ve Had a Silent Coup in This Country'

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin said that “we’ve had a silent coup in this country” with the Obama administration taking over healthcare, targeting the suburbs, and nationalizing the local police.

RADIO SHOW LINK

“His government doesn’t have the authority to do any of these things, but he does it,” Levin said on his July 8 broadcast. “Well, if that’s not martial law, what the hell is? We’ve had a silent coup in this country.”

“So, Obama’s pushing the ‘browning of America,’ not my phrase, theirs, ‘with open amnesty.’ Even if it means murderers, rapists and whatever come in. His friends in the sanctuary cities, he hasn’t spoken against a sanctuary city yet, has he? Despite the mayhem and the murder?

"Not a word. Nothing.

“He’s taken over our healthcare system and he’s destroying it. He’s destroying everything. And now, he is targeting the suburbs. He’s specifically targeting the suburbs. He’s nationalized local police departments effectively.

“You know people say, ‘Obama is going to declare martial law.’ He’s doesn’t have to declare it. He’s exercising it, isn’t he? His government doesn’t have the authority to do any of these things, but he does it.

"Well, if that’s not martial law, what the hell is?

“We’ve had a silent coup in this country. And the damn fools on the Supreme Court, most of them, not all of them … ‘Yes, yes. Yes he did. Prosecutorial discretion…we defer to the …’ Damn, fools."

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Malkin: Is Your Church Abetting Sanctuary Nation? by Michelle Malkin

The random, heartless murder of a young tourist on San Francisco's Pier 14 by a five-time illegal alien deportee who benefited from the "progressive" city's sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.

But for decades, feckless government leaders ignored the pleas of families who suffered the bloody consequences of open borders.

For every Kate Steinle who died at the hands of an illegal alien sanctuary beneficiary, there is a Tony, Michael and Matthew Bologna in San Francisco.

A Jamiel Shaw (age 17) or Xinran Ji (age 24) in Los Angeles.

A Martin Kudlis (age 3) in Denver.

An Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, Terrance Aeriel, or Natasha Aeriel in Newark.

A Zina Linnik (age 12) in Tacoma.

A Vanessa Pham (age 19) in Fairfax County, Va.

As I've reported time and again, liberal "sanctuary" programs in these metropolitan areas have protected, harbored and enabled criminal illegal aliens who disappeared into the deportation abyss. Both Democrats and Republicans, goaded by Big Government and Big Business interests, collaborated to turn America into a collective sanctuary nation. Non-enforcement is the rule, deportation evasion is the game, and the country is a safe haven -- for law-breakers from around the world.

Yet, even as born-again tough-on-borders grandstanders now race in front of cameras to condemn these dangerous policies, churches across the country are brazenly thumbing their noses at our immigration laws. And political phonies are doing nothing to stop them.

In Northeast Portland, Ore., the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Francisco Aguirre-Velasquez after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation rules.

In Tucson, Ariz., illegal alien Daniel Neyoy Ruiz took open, public refuge at Southside Presbyterian Church and then First Christian Church to avoid deportation. Fellow illegal alien Rosa Robles Loreto has been living at First Christian for nearly a year.

In Austin, Texas, First Unitarian Universalist church is harboring illegal alien Sulma Franco after the feds denied her deportation appeal.

In Denver, illegal alien Arturo Armando Hernandez Garcia has taken up long-term residence at First Unitarian Society of Denver church.

In Chicago, illegal alien Elvira Arellano settled at the United Methodist Church of Adalberto for a year before finally being ejected back to Mexico. Last year, the serial law-breaker somehow returned to the Windy City to protest her status "in the shadows."

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading....

Benghazi Panel Chair: Clinton Was Issued Subpoena

(Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Republican lawmakers investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, released a subpoena Wednesday issued to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refuting her claims that she was never subpoenaed.

Clinton used a private email address and a home-based server during her time at the State Department (2009-2013), and investigators on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are trying to piece together what Clinton knew at the time of the attacks.

During an interview with CNN this week, Clinton said everything she did was "permitted," including deleting thousands of emails without turning them over to the government.

"I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me," Clinton said. "Because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system. And now I think it's kind of fun, people get a real-time, behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about, and what I was communicating about."

On Wednesday, the Select Committee on Benghazi released a copy of one subpoena  sent to Clinton in March asking for all documents and records related to Libya from emails she sent in 2011 and 2012.

"The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public," committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said in an emailed statement.

"I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy. The committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them.

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

KANSAS GOV. BROWNBACK ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CLERGY ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OBJECTIONS

Gov. Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas is acting to protect clergy and religious organizations from punishment for refusing to recognize or provide services for same-sex marriages.

He’s issued an executive order, titled “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” that states:

[T]he protection of religious liberty from government infringement is a constitutional and fundamental state interest, and government is obligated to take measures that advance this interest by preventing government interference with religious exercise in a way that complements the protections mandated by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution…

The order, which also complements protections offered in the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, prohibits the state from taking any discriminatory action against “individual clergy or religious leader,” or any “religious organization” that objects to a marriage that conflicts with its religious beliefs or moral conviction that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

“We have a duty to govern and to govern in accordance with the Constitution as it has been determined by the Supreme Court decision,” said Brownback in a statement. “We also recognize that religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as Kansans and Americans, and should be protected.”

“The Kansas Bill of Rights affirms the right to worship according to ‘dictates of conscience’ and further protects against any infringement of that right,” he added. “Today’s Executive Order protects Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”

“While we disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court, it is important that all Kansans be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve,” the governor said.

According to the Washington Post, militant LGBT groups have condemned Brownback’s executive order.

“Having nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with enabling discrimination, this executive order is divisive, unnecessary, and sends the wrong message,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign.

She reportedly referred to the idea that clergy could be forced to participate in same-sex marriages as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized them nationwide as false rumors.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), however, announced in an op-ed in the WaPothat it “can no longer support” the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because “it is now often used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people…”

“Religious liberty doesn’t mean the right to discriminate or to impose one’s views on others,” wrote Louise Melling of the ACLU.

Melling views situations in which those who invoke the federal RFRA to protect their free exercise of faith as “abuses” if it means same-sex marriage and abortion are not accepted.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

[OPINION] The Real Student-Debt Crisis

"If you’re reading this, 'college' may connote a very expensive, four-year residential institution where one comes of age, acquires what one hopes will become an impressive lifelong credential and a network of useful friends, and learns at least something of the liberal arts," Nicholas Lemann writes in an opinion piece for The New Yorker.

"Because élites have a thumb on the scale of public discourse, discussions of student debt too often assume that it’s acquired at private liberal-arts institutions. In fact, the main drivers of student debt—which has recently risen to the attention-getting sum of a trillion dollars—are the rapid growth of for-profit, mostly online education institutions, where ninety per cent of students take on debt, completion rates are low, and default rates are high; substantial cuts by state legislatures in their support for public universities; and the stubborn fact that, for most people, going to college continues to pay off economically, effectively doubling lifetime earnings. ...

If people choose to exit from the higher-cost model rather than to stay and complain, then 'college,' notionally, will become more like the actual colleges that most American students attend. There’s something to be said, then, for complaining about rising costs at this small fraction of institutions: it’s emotionally satisfying, and it preserves a small and valuable part of the system."

NASFAA's "Headlines" section highlights media coverage of financial aid to help members stay up to date with the latest news. Inclusion in Today's News does not imply endorsement of the material or guarantee the accuracy of information presented.

 Via: NASFAA

Continue Reading....

Murdered by the Left: Time for a campaign against “sanctuary” cities

On Monday, illegal alien Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a 45-year-old repeat drug offender who had been deported five times, was charged with killing Kathryn Steinle, 32, at Pier 14 in the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco. The details surrounding this case are a testament to the multi-layered bankruptcy of progressive ideology.

We begin with the contemptible notion of a sanctuary city itself. Despite the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 requiring cities to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), there are literally hundreds of cities in the nation that provide safe haven for illegal aliens in open defiance of federal law. Yet, because that law conflicts with progressive sensibilities, not a single lawsuit has ever been filed by the federal government against a sanctuary city for violating it. In a revealing contrast, the Obama administration has filed suit against states such as Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina that were attempting to enforce federal immigration law. The administration claimed the states had no right to do so—despite the reality the administration itself refuses to do so.

The case of Lopez-Sanchez itself is equally illuminating. Despite his presence in America following five deportations to his native country of Mexico, ICE turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco police on March 26 because he had an outstanding drug warrant. And despite the reality he had a record of seven felony convictions, San Francisco released Lopez-Sanchez to the streets on April 15, after the district attorney declined to prosecute him for a 20-year-old marijuana possession charge. In short, the feds aided and abetted the release of a serial border-buster to a sanctuary city manifestly unwilling to jail a career criminal.

No one made that reality clearer than San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. Mirkarimi first blamed ICE for Sanchez-Lopez’s release, insisting the agency didn’t file a formal court application to detain him. But in a later interview with CNN, his progressive instincts were revealed. The sheriff defended San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy, insisting it “makes us safer.” “We’re a world-renowned city with a large immigrant population,” Mirkarimi declared. “And of that population is a population that is also here undocumented. From a law enforcement perspective, we want to build trust with that population. And our sanctuary city and other attendant laws have allowed us to do that.”

Mirkarimi’s arrogant defiance of federal law is nothing new. In a press release sent out last year, he boasted about a revision made to his department’s policy of retainment that “reduced the number of individuals released to ICE authorities by 62 percent. Only one other county in California had a policy of similar strength,” it stated.

San Francisco’s equally contemptible Mayor, Ed Lee, added ideologically inspired insult to injury. Despite issuing a press release saying he was “deeply saddened” by the “tragic and senseless death,” of Steinle and that his “thoughts and prayers” were with her family, he also endorsed his city’s sanctuary policy. “Let me be clear: [the policy] protects residents regardless of immigration status and is not intended to protect repeat, serious and violent felons,” he said. Lee further emphasized his commitment to “civil liberties” and “public safety” to explain his 2013 decision to “veto any legislation” undermining the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s ability to determined whether or not to honor ICE-issued “detainers” on a case-by-case basis.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

AP's Rugaber Changed Jobs Report Assessment Again on Thursday, From 'Mixed' to 'Bleaker Picture'

The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber had a very bad day on Thursday as he covered the government's June jobs report, but it was all self-inflicted.

 I noted much of the problem in a NewsBusters post yesterday, citing how the AP economics writer got badly burned while engaging in the wire service's usual practice of analyzing expected and reported economic results instead of concentrating on relaying the facts. But there's more.

 Ahead of the government's report, Rugaber claimed that it would that it would "likely" show that the job market "is nearing full health."

He stuck to his guns in the first paragraph of the story he filed shortly after the report was released, claiming that the job market is "moving close to full health," despite acknowledging clear weaknesses in two paragraphs which followed. The first paragraph's unsupportable take on things appeared to designed to ensure that "good news" reports would emanate from online outlets, email alerts and AP-subscribing broadcasters across the nation. 

A mere half-hour after his initial post-release report, Rugaber began to reverse field. Now the very same government report which showed that the job market was "moving close to full health" at 8:39 a.m. was "paint(ing) a mixed picture" at 9:12 a.m.

 Thanks to the AP's annoying (and keister-covering) practice of sending older reports down the memory hole once they've been updated or revised, I didn't know until this morning when I stumbled across it at a non-AP site that Rugaber downgraded his evaluation of the results and their potential impact again late Thursday afternoon.

Via MRC Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Dems: Not voting to release Clinton aide's transcript is 'an abuse of power' 35

Democrats serving on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are chiding the panel’s chairman for not holding a vote on whether to make public the deposition of Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.

In a statement, the panel’s five Democrats said they are “disappointed” chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) “decided not to hold a vote today on releasing the transcript of Sidney Blumenthal’s deposition, particularly since we have no hearings, interviews, briefings, or other activities on today’s schedule.”

“We believe it is an abuse of power for Republicans to selectively release Mr. Blumenthal’s emails while at the same time withholding the deposition transcript from the American people,” they added.

The statement comes a little over a week after Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the panel’s ranking member, said the select committee would vote today on releasing Blumenthal’s roughly nine-hour, closed-door interview.

But a GOP spokesman for the panel quickly shot down that idea, saying Gowdy had not scheduled anything relative to holding such a vote.

Gowdy and other Republicans have resisted making the deposition public, noting that the select committee hasn’t released the text of any of its previous interviews.

Democrats had expected to lose the vote, being outnumbered on the 12-member committee 7 to 5. But panel member Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) has said the deposition should be public, putting Democrats one vote away from getting it released.

Democrats believe the transcript will show GOP questions during the marathon, closed-door session were mostly political and not focused on the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including an ambassador.

"The fact is that the Select Committee has not held a public hearing in more than five months, and the taxpayers of this nation should be able to see for themselves how far beyond Benghazi the Select Committee has strayed in its glacial, politically-motivated, $3.7 million fishing expedition targeting Secretary Clinton," they said. "We urge Chairman Gowdy to follow the House rules and schedule the vote promptly.”

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Half of Capitol Hill Staff Could Qualify for New Overtime Rules

Nearly half of Capitol Hill staffers could qualify for overtime pay under the new Obama administration overtime rules to move the threshold to $50,440. Whether the new rules will apply to staffers is an open question for Congress.

According to a custom report produced for CQ Roll Call by LegiStorm, 5,617 staffers, or 43 percent, are making less than $50,440 annually. The report analyzed 13,092 Capitol Hill staffers who work in committee, leadership and personal offices of the House and Senate and adjusted for anomalies, which include staffers who leave midway through a fiscal quarter and those paid out for vacation days.

The new overtime regulations are expected to affect nearly 5 million Americans. On a recent conference call with reporters, White House Domestic Policy Council Chief Cecilia Muñoz said the Office of Personnel Management is likely to adopt the new threshold for federal government workers as well.

However, legislative branch employees — including Capitol Hill staff — are exempt from many labor rules unless Congress takes proactive action, such as amending the landmark Congressional Accountability Act that brought workplace rights, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, to Capitol Hill staffers.

While several offices — including that of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. — provide overtime pay, many do not. Long hours are considered the de rigueur workplace norm on Capitol Hill, as is lower-than-market-value pay.

Capitol Hill jobs are competitive — many want to work on the Hill and some are willing to do so for free. Offices are small, compact units, often functioning as their own separate small businesses with their own workplace rules and norms. For many staffers, the day begins before the boss arrives and lasts well into evening receptions at night, which can often mean 50- or 60-hour workweeks when Congress is in session.

Under the previous overtime threshold of $23,660, only 244 staffers, or less than 2 percent, would have qualified for overtime pay. However, a source familiar with the LegiStorm data believed the number to be even smaller, as the low salary likely included temporary workers, such as interns or part-time staff.

The Obama administration announced plans in June to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to move the overtime threshold from $23,660 to $50,440. An open-comment period will last through September, and the new overtime threshold would be implemented in 2016. Workers who make less than $50,440 would be paid time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.

While Congress has previously been unwilling or slow to take action on implementing employment laws for its own employees, the overtime rules fall into a gray area. Parts of the FLSA were adopted as part of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995, including overtime provisions.

“I think there is going to be a lot of pressure for Congress to keep current with the FLSA,” said Kelly A. Magnuson, a labor and employment attorney with Tully Rinckey PLLC. “The CAA does follow the FLSA. To now say that they are not going to make the changes is going to cause a lot of upheaval.”

It’s possible that even as new overtime regulation changes sweep the private sector and executive branch, Congress may remain resistant to modifying its own employment rules. If not, staff on Capitol Hill, even those making as little as $23,661 annually, may see no changes.

The overtime rules are most likely to affect staffers in House personal offices, said Jock Friedly, president and founder of LegiStorm, who produced the data for CQ Roll Call.

“As a general rule, people make more in the Senate than they do in the House; it’s a very clear trend that we see,” Friedly said. “Even for the same job, the Senate will pay more than the House does.” Committee and leadership offices often pay more as well, with Friedly noting that certain committees have one-fourth of the staff making close to the staffer maximum salary of $174,000.

Certain Hill offices may adopt the overtime changes, said Julie Kashen, a former House and Senate staffer and current senior policy adviser for Make It Work. “That is the way so much already works on the Hill. Some offices have much more flexible policies overall. And some are less generous,” she said.

Kashen believes the increase in transparency has helped provide more generous workplace policies on Capitol Hill, and that a younger generation of millennials are likely to speak up and demand workplaces that “work for them” rather than accepting an outdated status quo. “Younger staffers may be a huge part of that,” Kashen explained. “They are the ones most likely affected by it.”

One thing that is not likely to change is the high level of interest in pursuing Capitol Hill jobs. Even without adhering to the same labor laws as the rest of the workforce, enough staffers find the employment worthwhile and meaningful to do, even without extra compensation.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

Subpoena threat issued for ObamaCare files

House Republicans are threatening to subpoena documents related to an ObamaCare program at the center of their lawsuit against President Obama.

The Republican chairmen of the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees on Wednesday released a letter to the administration reiterating a request made in February for documents related to the program. 

Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.) set a deadline of July 21 for a response. If the administration does not provide the documents by then, a subpoena will be considered, they said.

“If HHS fails to produce the documents and information, the committees will have no choice but to consider the use of the compulsory process to obtain them,” the letter states.

Ryan and Upton first asked for the documents in February. The letter reiterating the request was sent to Health Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

House Republicans argue that the administration is unconstitutionally spending money on an ObamaCare program despite Congress declining to appropriate money for it. That allegation is at the center of House Republicans’ lawsuit, which is being heard by a federal court in the case House v. Burwell

The funds in question are for “cost-sharing reductions” that help insurers lower out-of-pocket costs for low-income people.

House Republicans are seeking documents related to the administration’s decision to make payments through the program despite the absence of an appropriation. 

In court filings, the administration has laid out the case that it did not need an appropriation for the funds because they are mandatory spending not subject to the appropriations process. 

Republicans counter the administration requested an appropriation for the program in 2013, which was turned down. But the administration says it later realized the request was unnecessary because it had the funds through mandatory spending. 

Obama administration officials also say Congress never took action to block the funds and even passed a bill, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, that was predicated on the idea that the funds were available.

“Thus, although the House seeks to focus on the Administration’s initial budget request for FY2014, the end result of the budget process for that year confirms a shared understanding that these payments could be made,” the administration wrote in a court filing last week.

The administration has asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, saying Congress does not have legal standing to sue the president.

But Judge Rosemary Collyer leveled tough questions at the Department of Justice lawyer during arguments on the question in May.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Rick Perry to Hannity: Donald Trump said ALL MEXICANS were rapists and killers

Rick Perry told Hannity last night that Donald Trump painted with a broad brush and basically said ALL MEXICANS were rapists and killers, which is patently false. Hannity challenged him on that mischaracterization but Perry gave a non-answer, refusing to acknowledge that Trump was only referring to ‘some’ illegals.

Watch (the exchange happens near the beginning):

I’ve liked Rick Perry for a long time and believe he did a lot of good things for Texas, things that would be good for the country. But I am now seeing a side of him I do not like. It’s one thing to disagree with his comments in an honest way, but it’s another thing to completely mischaracterize them in order to bolster your own position. That’s something Democrats do all the time. I don’t like it then and I don’t like it now.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....