Justice John Roberts and The Roberts Court - Health Care Act Legal as a Tax – A Political Ruling - Opinion

We the People - the Great Awakening After the Act was passed in 2010 - image: rossputin.com

The Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress in 2010 became a “call to action” for millions of American’s who found themselves suddenly faced with the realization that Congress and the Executive Branch under the control of President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party was, indeed, plotting a pathway to more taxation and government control over individual rights – the result was a watershed election in November of 2010 which cost the Democrats control of the Congress. The movement became the “Tea Party” and the rest, as they say, is history. Yesterday the Roberts Court ruled that the act was Constitutional based on the fact that the Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress was intended as a “Tax” – immediately the assumption by conservative pundits and individuals was that Chief Justice Roberts was somehow flawed – and the Courts ruling a death knell to individual liberty – with one glaring exception – a brilliant statement by Erick Erickson of RedState in an email: “Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.” .

Robert’s, in his ruling noted:

“Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Im¬posts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Con¬gress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.”

The message: The Affordable Health Care Act, which cost the Democrats the Congress in 2010, was indeed a Tax – had an immediate effect – a political and financial effect that will have far-reaching consequences for both major political parties and the American people in general.

From the New York Times article: “Justices Allow the Term ‘Tax’ to Embrace ‘Penalty’” :
“The law in question did not call it a tax. It called it a penalty for not buying health insurance. To the dissenters, that proved it was not a tax. To the chief justice, the choice of words could not obscure the reality. He noted that those who chose to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance would be writing checks to the Internal Revenue Service and would not end up with a criminal record.” …

“The second health care bill passed by Congress in 2010, devised in part to fix errors in the first law and in part to pay for it, raised the Medicare payroll tax rate by 0.9 percentage points, to 3.8 percent, effective in 2013.

It also extended that tax to income on investments, including capital gains, interest, dividends, annuities and royalties, but only for individuals with a total income of more than $200,000, or $250,000 for married couples filing a joint return.
For people whose incomes are that high, the effective tax rate on dividends and long-term capital gains will rise to 18.8 percent from the current level of 15 percent, said Robert N. Gordon, president of Twenty-First Securities, a brokerage firm.

It could, of course, go even higher if Congress fails to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts that are now scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Mr. Gordon said that could encourage some taxpayers to sell investments before the year ends, rather than wait. “We know taxes are going up,” he said. “It is just a matter of how much.” (New York Times – read the complete article here

The fact that not purchasing health insurance is perceived as a “criminal act” is correct as one not purchasing heath care is, under Roberts ruling “evading federal taxes” – therefore committing a crime. In Massachusetts, under the mandate, individuals who cannot afford the high monthly premiums, elect to pay a “tax” to the Mass. Department of Revenue rather than pay the hefty monthly premiums. Premiums are set by the insurance carriers based on a “pool” of individuals and the mandated coverage by state. In Massachusetts the number of carriers is limited (as it is in many states), therefore, the pool is limited, the risk is greater and premiums are adjusted upward accordingly – the affordable insurance becomes unaffordable. The monthly premium of $1,000 for a family plan, when compared to a $2900 fee payable to the State and the end of the year, makes the fee more attractive – those individuals are “deemed” by the State as “covered” as they have paid the “tax” – therefore, not subject to criminal penalties. The fees set by the Federal program are upwards to $25,000, dependent upon income. In the case of individuals who, subject to individual state regulations, cannot afford monthly premiums, must now pay two “Caesar’s” the state and the federal government. The Act upheld created multiple taxes on individuals making average incomes - an unintended consequence of the “Affordable” Health Care Act.

The additional taxes levied to pay for the program, through higher tax rates on capital gains, not only effects those that are “rich” by standards set by political necessity, but by every single American citizen who is the recipient of a gain in income as determined by the Internal Revenue Service. This gain in income can be a pension received in a lump sum as a death benefit crucial to a widow upon the death of his/her spouse – a sudden life savings of $60,000 is immediately reduced by both Federal and State taxes. Those saving in individual retirement programs, specifically the baby boomers, now are finding that retirement savings, now withdrawn in harsh economic times, at retirement age, are subject to Capital Gains Taxes – the amount can be as little as $10,000, and the return needed to survive substation ally reduced, specifically in one lives in a state that also taxes a “capital gain”. Those politician’s on the drumbeat of “tax the rich” and “distribute the wealth” citing Capital Gains, are deceiving the “masses” who will and now are discovering that “wealth” is subjective to the standards of the Federal Government.

Those “investors” who will be pulling investments prior to the implementation of the new plan/tax, are in most cases, likely to be businessmen, who will also not be “hiring” – therefore affecting the employment rate and Wall Street. Wall Street to those who are so enamored of pointing fingers at the “few Wealthy who should pay more” also is tied to every single pension or retirement plan, either corporate or individual – see Capital Gains Taxes and the reduction of retirement savings of millions of baby boomers as a result.

The political aspect was immediate as both political parties sent out letters, made robo-calls and appeals of all sorts for funds: From the DNC’s email calling for support for Obama, now that the health care ruling was in his favor – to protect him from those who would see him “overthrown”, to every single Conservative Congressional Candidate, Senatorial Candidate and especially the Tea Party calling for help to overthrow, not only the President, but every Democrat who supports the bill down to the office of Dog Catcher.

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney fared exceptionally well receiving “more than $2 million and more than 20,000 donations, as of about 4:50 p.m. ET.” yesterday (USA Today).

Indeed, a tax, and indeed one would be best served not playing a round of chess with Chief Justice John Roberts.

Final note: In Massachusetts the Daily Hampshire Gazette offered a list of politicians who both applaud and oppose the Decision to Uphold the Healthcare Tax Act: “Massachusetts politicians who support health care law celebrate ruling”: Supporting: All Democrat Congressional Representatives, the Candidate for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, and Opposing, all Republican Candidates for Congress and one “shot heard round the world in 2010” – Senator Scott Brown.

Calls in support of Brown are now coming in from all area codes, into Massachusetts, - these calls are by individuals, who are making “calls from home” - the increase was immediate upon the Courts decision. One can bet the House and the Senate, that 2012 will be an election, as historic, or perhaps more historic than that of 2010.

The Message the “Tea Party Is Over” – Not Quite Right – Wishful thinking from Dems and Big Spend Republicans – The Tea Party – The Next Party - Opin

The Tea Party - Visits Washington DC - Dismissed by Media, Carried by C-Span - image realhonestthinking.com


Of course, the Tea Party isn’t officially a political party yet – it is more of a loosely based, national movement, with a variety of spokespersons, most of whom are conservatives, some social, some fiscal, some both. As a group – they represent those that work for a living, pay taxes, and are as diverse a political movement as they come. Having looked at the Tea Party from its early stages, when a few hundred thousand people showed up at various locations across the nation to protest taxes – thus the moniker TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already), to the present stage of greater organization, and greater dismissal from the left and the right – they are often pronounced weakened, redundant, or simply non-existent by those who would like to see them simply go away. That includes the two major political parties. The Democrats, who are often the target due to massive spending (see Fiscal Conservatives), and cannot fathom a protest group, whose members, some of which might even be stay-at-home mom’s – have a better grasp of the Constitution than say – certain members of Congress. In 2010, the drubbing taken by the Democrats in Congress was largely at the hands of Tea Party candidates – who ran as “Republicans”.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are being co-opted, they more than the Democrats (as far as anyone knows) has a real beef, as the nervy Tea Party candidates, run as Republican’s and have a habit of running against their entrenched politicians. Sure they are Republicans, but they are in favor of spending, pork projects, and that does not fly with the Tea Party. Not unlike Libertarians, Tea Party candidates will run as Republican’s as it is a brand – that’s so far. In states where there may not be a large enough Republican Brand – they may even be running as Democrats. The point for the Tea Party - get elected to office and “fix” the legislature - One big point of order – they firmly believe in a limited government run by, no kidding, citizen legislatures - In other words, the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

As of now, there are Tea Parties in every state and hamlet in this nation – with a few exceptions – to locate a Tea Party – See theteaparty.net/locate a tea party group, or www.teapartypatriots.org where one can “find a local group” by zip code from their home page. As of today, in both instances, there are 56 Tea Party Groups in Massachusetts.

Organizing the groups in 50 states as they group and coalesce could see a distinct third party develop, one with a strong local organizations, with candidates in place, including those elected to office as either Republicans or Democrats on a par with the other two main parties who now control the U.S. Government – within two to three years – and that’s a conservative estimate – no pun intended.
The best instance of denial: James Carville, pundit of the left, Democrat operative, and contributor on a cable news is suggesting that the “Tea Party is Over”. This is about a race in New York State, the 28th District, and Carvel wants that District firmly in Democrat hands - so he paints a picture in a fund-raising email the Democrat Candidate Louise Slaughter, basically stating the annoying Tea Party isn’t gone yet, and the Democrats need money to fight them – he goes on to suggest that they are aligned closely with Republicans and that “big money” is funding their election efforts. Nice Try. Maggie Brooks (www.maggiebrooks.com) is running against Louise, but on a platform that is decidedly fiscally conservative. She appears to be more Republican on the surface – yet, compared to Louise, www.votelouise.com Ms. Brooks does appear to be a rubber stamp politician, rather more of a citizen – the standard fare of issues (women’s rights, war in Afghanistan, and especially: Protecting America from the Republicans) , is decidedly partisan, and is exactly the type of politician that will go to Washington and be a rubber stamp. Which may be why the Democrats are a tad concerned about those “Tea Party” candidates taking away their ability to stonewall and spend.

On the flip side, Redstate.com, offers a look at a little watched primary in Oklahoma – the 1st district - A little known, underfunded, citizen runs against an entrenched Republican who is big on subsidies, somehow, to everyone’s surprise, upends the incumbent. The incumbent ran on farm subsidies, which, one would think would be huge in that district, however, the challenger, Tea, ran on conservative principles (getting the fiscal house in order, ending those subsidies and balanced budgets). Red State’s reporting suggests that even those who are receiving government benefits (subsidies), are willing to give them up to have someone in office that will work to get the Federal Deficit under control and limit government growth.

The Tea Party – members do not discriminate, be it a Republican or a Democrat, and once they are organized into wards and precincts, city by city, state by state, they will be, more than probably the most popular political party – despite the negatives in the Press, or perhaps because of them.


A Tea Party Meeting in Concord, NH - images muellerstuffblog

A Gallop Poll on Political Parties suggest that voters, in general, are sick of both major parties, and are registering as independents, in fact, independents (or non-affiliated, or unenrolled), are growing – in January of this year 40% considered themselves non-affiliated. . There exists a growing distaste for the two major political parties, and the time is right, from an historical perspective, for a new party to emerge. The Tea Party, at this point, is the strongest, best organized of the bunch of ideological parties (Libertarian, New Party (Communist), Socialist Party, Green Party to name a few) and as members of the aforementioned (obviously Communist and Socialist would not vest themselves in a Party that is for limited government growth), align with the Tea Party, adding disgruntled Republicans, and disgruntled moderate to conservative Democrats (they exist), as well as those who are tired of the two-party system (see 40%) this could be one heck of a party.

Which is not news to James Carville, or to those entrenched Beltway Republicans and Democrats who on the one hand dismiss and one the other, embrace tentatively – so far – simply because they are portrayed as Republican in nature. That is partly true, if the Republican Party was still Lincolns Party, but...that ship sailed a long time ago. They are who they are, and it is refreshing to see these “guerilla politico’s” taking on the establishment in true “revolutionary” style. This is going to be another one of “those” years, 2010 was just a warning shot (See Concord), 2012 will be Yorktown.

*Note: If one has never attended a “Tea Party Meeting” one might want to give it a try – especially if one is under the impression that it is a rather rag-tag bunch of crazy people (see press). The meeting might consist of educational sessions, speakers of noted pedigree lecturing on the economy, or perhaps a three part series on Communism and the development in the 1930’s, or perhaps a course on the Constitution. There may be local political activism, as in reviewing candidates for election, inviting them to speak, going over their issues. One might find discussions on growth and membership, as well as involvement in grassroots organizing, and charitable works on a very basic local level. It’s almost as if one has walked into an Urban “Grange” (if one is in a “City”). Members are from all political parties, but basically unenrolled (Massachusetts) - and all have a goal – to learn – to become active – from the least to the greatest.

Are there crazy people who populate the Tea Party – of course, but on the flip side, take a look at duly elected officials from both Major Political Parties and compare – or their supporters, even better, and it’s all fairly normal, more normal than either major Party would care to admit.


Tea Party Meeting and Recruitment in Brooklyn - image the midwoodblog

Obama Care and The Big “If” – Severability - Interpreting Tea Leaves and Roberts Role in Writing the Majority Opinion. Commentary and Opinion

The United States Supreme Court - Image: NaitonalJournal.com

From the beginning of the passage of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 has been problematic – politically and logistically. Written in what amounts to a biblical tome format, the Act to Overall America’s Health Care to a “State Controlled” system brought about a schism in the population in 2010 that was not anticipated by either major political party. The Tea Party, focus on taxes, turned to focus on the Legislation known as “Obama’s Signature Legislation” or, in other words, the only thing that the President has accomplished, of note, in his term to date. Today, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the constitutionality of the Act, and, as such, there is much speculation as to how that ruling should or may come down.

The man at the center of the all the focus is one Chief Justice John Roberts – who is rumored to be writing the Majority Opinion. Forbes suggests that the Court is likely to partially overturn Obama Care, however, as to the actual Health Care Act, there are only two options available: If one believes the Constitution to be fluid and living document that is outdated and therefore easily manipulated to fit the era, then the Bill would stand. However, if the majority are strict constructionists, believing that the Constitution is to be interpreted as written – the Bill falls. The Bill falls, not in part, but in total due to one glaring mistake made by the House and the Senate in their rush to push this Bill to Obama’s desk for signature – they failed to include a severability clause.

There is without doubt speculation as to why this may have occurred, that if the Bill were to be challenged and then struck down, it would allow for the Administration and chief architects to rewrite and rebuild, which makes little to no sense, given the volatility of American politics and the obvious opportunity to win or lose elections based on the mood of the nation. In other words, Obama had one shot, and one shot only at getting his legislation passed. He now has one shot, and one shot only at seeing it either stand in total and or fall completely. From this opinion, the fact that the federal mandate included in the bill, forcing individuals to purchase an item (health care), would be in violation of the Commerce Clause. This is the primary case which has been brought by multiple states to the highest court – the fact that the law, as written in unconstitutional.

The further fact that there is no “safety net” or severability clause included in the act, suggests that should the mandate fail to meet the test of Constitutionality, then the balance of the Act would, by association, or the inability to disassociate, (lack of severability), fall as well.
Roberts, who is a strict Constructionist in the role of writing the majority opinion, yet this offers no clue as to which way the majority ruled on said Health Care Act. Precisely because he has noted he would write the opinion regardless of the ruling. There is some basic math to suggest, however, that the ruling will not be in favor of maintaining the law given the make-up of the court.

The Courtin current makeup: Roberts, Chief Justice (Strict Constructionist), Antonin Scalia, (Strict Constructionist), Anthony M. Kennedy (Undetermined), Clarence Thomas (Strict Constructionist), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Legislate Not Interpret), Stephen G. Breyer (Legislate Not Interpret), Samuel Anthony Alito (Strict Constructionist), Elena Kagan (Legislate Not Interpret), Sonia M. Sotamayor (Undetermined). Therefore, there are 4 that would interpret the Constitution as it stands, there are 3 that would certainly re-write the entire Constitution given the chance, and then there are two that have written opinions that are contrary to one or the other stated points of view. The later are the “wild cards” of the Court.

In any event, the law, as written will be adjudicated today by the Highest Court in the Land, without political motivation (for those non-legislating justifies), however, it is this opinion that there can only be two Constitutionally correct outcomes, given the fact that there is, again, a lack of severability – the Bill will either be struck down in its entirety or held valid in its entirety. To rule “in part”, makes no sense if one is a Strict Constructionist. On the flip side, if it is ruled “in part”, in any shape of form, then it will be clear that Robert’s Majority Opinion, would indicate that the influence of those who would legislate and those that would, for lack of a better phrase, sit on the fence to render a decision that is equal to both sides, solving nothing, and being rather politically correct for both parties.

If the law is deemed unconstitutional, and without the severability clause, the entire law collapse, then it is the duty of the Congress and the Senate as they now sit, to re-write as quickly as possible, a sensible plan for the nation – one which might imitate yet another Massachusetts Insurance Model, that of the Auto Industry.
In extremely simple terms: Everyone in Massachusetts is required by law to own auto insurance – the State passed a law allowing Massachusetts residents greater access to multiple carriers rather than the original “few” that existed. The result: the costs went down significantly; individuals were given a wide range of plans to choose from, with varying levels of benefits, making the individual decision to purchase what they needed at a price they could afford.

In the same wise, Health Care could be adjudicated, open to competition across state lines, kicking the literally monopoly that certain carriers or quasi cooperatives (such as Blue Cross Blue Shield), have over individual states to the curb – mandating few benefits – those that are preventive care should stand, and offering a la cart, those current mandates that individuals could purchase as a “rider” to their policy – paying a higher or lower premium, depending upon need and finally, taking personal responsibility. As to Medicaid and Medicare – the Federal and State agencies could further mange the monolithic budget by instituting a program that vests the insured in their health care program through a rewards systems. This rewards systems has been in place in self-funded insurance plans, and works towards a reduction of fraud and reduction of premiums paid by both the employer and the employee. The gist: Employees (or recipients of benefits) monitor their health care bills, and report errors to the plan administrator, those individuals finding erroneous or fraudulent claims would then be eligible for a “reward”, either a percentage of the savings, or in the form of increased benefits (add a mandate from the menu.) Streamline, and simplified, a plan that allows everyone access, without fear of fine, and with the ability to control costs, for themselves, their employer and or even the State and/or Federal Government.

One final note: for those states who have instated some form of mandated state health plans, prior to Obama’s national model, would they not then, be compelled to look at the model they currently use, and compare their health care programs to their auto insurance programs and, perhaps, just perhaps, offer the aforementioned scenario to the consumers in their States, bringing more affordable health care coverage to all residents. Of course, this would have to pass muster with the individual carrier – cooperatives that have strangleholds on certain states, and serious lobbying power in the various Capitals.

Obama Comes to Mass for Cash – Channel's Patrick - Warren Acts As Attack Dog – Romney's Sense of Humor – Drives Circles Around $18K Obama Fundraiser!

The Master and the Mentored: Obama, Patrick, Axelrod - Anyone see a theme here? - image (Obama/Axelrod) Masslive - Patrick - New York Times


When a sitting President visits any state, even Massachusetts, it’s a big deal, if the President takes the time to say hello to the people who might have got him elected – unless of course, the State is a Commonwealth and that Commonwealth is Massachusetts – where Democrats overwhelmingly preferred Hillary in 2008. That said it does not prevent the President to turn to the Progressive faithful in Boston in a whirlwind grab for much needed Cash – before campaigning elsewhere, or going elsewhere for more money. The Boston Globe’s”Money is the focus during Obama’s Boston visit” - with a few interesting points:

“President Obama thanked Boston Monday for trading Red Sox third-baseman Kevin Youkilis to his Chicago White Sox, but he owed far more thanks to the supporters who donated thousands of dollars to see him at three Boston-area fund-raisers.”
“The whirlwind day — with stops at Hamersley’s Bistro in the South End, Symphony Hall, and a private home in Weston — was intended to tap a Massachusetts well that has yielded fewer maximum individual contributions than the president collected in his 2008 campaign. The number of Bay State supporters who contributed the $2,500 maximum to Obama’s campaign fund had plunged by nearly half when compared with the same period four years ago.”
President Obama spent more than an hour inside Hamersley’s Bistro, whose front windows were covered. At the restaurant, 25 supporters, hosted by Boston advertising executive Jack Connors, paid $40,000 each to attend.
Many held signs, including one that read, “The 1% of Boston Welcomes Obama.”
At Symphony Hall, general-admission tickets for a crowd of 1,800 people started at $250, with a limited number at $144 for younger supporters. And at the day’s final event at the Weston home of Judi and Douglas Krupp, 100 people who attended dinner with the president paid $17,900 each.
The pressure on the president has been ratcheted up by Mitt Romney’s fund-raising performance. In May, for the first time, Romney’s joint fund-raising committee collected more money than Obama, $76.8 million to $60 million. Despite being outpaced last month, the president’s return to Boston just before the end of the fiscal quarter should boost his numbers.

What one reads in the Boston Globe is the following: Obama’s fundraising is down, even in Massachusetts, he’s being welcomed by the 1% - or those who are not associated and make sure one knows it with “Occupy anything” – rather those that are characterized for their “Corporate Greed.” In order to attend the least pricey event, only 1800 had the $250 bucks to see the President speak, or wanted to part with it – but 100 individuals from the more elite Progressives had at least $17,900 to sit down with Obama in a private home. Finally Obama is feeling the heat from Romney’s fundraising Prowess – or his own lack of fundraising ability this time around – especially in the Bluest State, where if a Democrat isn’t a shoe-in to being with, those loafers can be made to fit.

Meanwhile – the Los Angeles Times Suggests that the Progressive Democrat Senate Candidate, Grandma Warren, is now Obama’s attack dog – the opening act for the President in Boston (maybe he’ll do us all a favor and Ms. Chow Wow Pow on the road.) The Times goes so far as to suggest that Warren has “joined forces with the President”. Joined Forces – that’s brilliant! Her motto with Romney – Bain, Bain and more Bain, with a little smattering of Outsourcing – which would be nice, if Romney had been at Bain, at the time, which he was not, and which most Democrats agree is somewhat of a toxic take on attacking Romney – but – she’s running for the Senate in Massachusetts – as a Democrat.

Remember, Warren started the Occupy Movement, which makes one wonders how she reconciles sitting down to dinner with the 1%’ers who support her better half (Obama)


Romney and His Bus - He even pumps his own gas! (image: greenautoblog

Not to let an opportunity to pull a prank go to waste, the suddenly humorous former Governor of Massachusetts, and yes, Obama foe, Mitt Romney, took his campaign bus out for a ride around downtown Boston, once again circling those Obama supporters they could find. (Weaselzippers). The left of course felt it was truly awful. Over at TMP, the word “heckling” as bandied about instead of “honking”. The point – Romney is a smart guy, if he’s doing anything, he’s recruiting! – Something that the President is, according to the Boston Globe (see beginning paragraphs) not doing in Massachusetts, but holding onto at least 50% of his 2008 supporters. Romney’s drive-by’s are simply Romney having a sense of humor, Romney being ever entrepreneurial and Romney turning Lemons into Lemonade! What happened to our national sense of humor?

As a matter of fact, Romney’s sense of humor and the more he applies his pranks, makes him ultimately more appealing, especially to those who are sick and tired of the gloom, doom and indecision that has caused the malaise that now permeates every nook and cranny of the country. Therefore, in the beginning one might have been tempted to vote for Mitt Romney because he was not Obama, now, one might be tempted to vote for Romney because he’s still not Obama, but he has a sense of humor to boot – and contrary to Elizabeth Warren’s ranting about greedy corporations, the fact is not all corporations are greedy (especially when one reads about politicians just stopping in at the Commonwealth bank of Progressive Ideology), Corporations both employ people and they pay taxes. Those taxes support Warren while she’s at Harvard teaching how to write Native American Cookbooks without even trying very hard or using one’s own materials. Mitt Romney, of course, is not running against Elizabeth Warren, he’s running against Barack Obama, and something has to make this contest interesting for those of us in the state most likely to vote – Democrat (Maybe)

One has Mitt Romney’s sense of humor or the wish to have been a fly on the wall during the debate prep between President Obama (playing himself) and John Forbes Kerry (I park my Yacht in RI to stiff the Commonwealth), playing Romney! (Boston Globe)

Saving the Best for Last:

From the Globe: :
“They figure that if we simply eliminate regulations and cut taxes by trillions of dollars, then the market will solve all of our problems,” Obama said of Romney and the Republican Party.
“We don’t need more top-down economics. What we need is some middle class-out economics, some bottom-up economics. We need a plan for better education and for better training, for energy independence, for innovation, for infra¬structure that can rebuild America,” Obama added.
If that speech sounds familiar, it echoes the notes Governor Deval Patrick struck as he won reelection in 2010. He shares a political adviser, ¬David Axelrod, with the president.

He also shares his notes, and his mantras: Yes you can, Yes you Can, Yes You Can – However, this time next year, the President may be wishing he had a different adviser, used someone else's “cliff notes” on riling up crowds and getting elected”, and had taken a few economic courses from someone other than Jimmy Carter.
From the State that turned Red Twice in the last 50 years in a Presidential election – (ironically with more Democrats in Power and Carter in office.) the President is now heading to warmer climates in the hopes of coming up with more Cash before the end of the quarter.

Dem’s NC Convention Woes – Cuomo Compares Romney to Nixon? The National emphasis on on Grandma Warren - Draft Hillary Now

The Warren-Obama Connection - and 2016 - Are Democrats Serious?


From all accounts the Democrat National Convention to be held in Charlotte, NC is being billed as a “train wreck” or “disaster”, of course, this comes from one syndicated columnist whose use of adjectives are at once descriptive and yet, hilarious, depending upon which side of the aisle one subscribes. (See Michelle Malkin's New York Post OPed piece here for the full flavor.)

However, in every piece that attempts to inform and entertain, there is more than a grain of truth – a trip around the web finds that several higher profile Democrats plan on skipping the Tar-Heel State this year, it’s an election issue, their own. From Gather.com “More Democrats Announce Plans To Skip Convention” - included in the skipping: New York Democratic Representatives Bill Owens and Kathy Hochul , Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, Sen. Joe Manchin and Rep. Nick Rahall –a total of 5 to date.

The CNN announced another: Mark Critz of Pennsylvania who is up for election in November in a re-drawn competitive 12th Congressional District.
That said there must be more to this story than meets the eye – but of course, it’s the fact that the Convention is being held in a State that is “right to work” and of course, Democrats are backed mainly by Labor Unions – putting them at odds with their base.

Now, Occupy Wall Street plans to attend with Gusto - entitled “The Charlotte Principle” with a note to “Occupy Wall Street South”, the rising use of anarchy rather than insipid chanting (not sure which is most annoying), will greet convention goers – of course, Obama’s own, Elizabeth Warren created the group - (a la Al Gore) as a platform for running for Senate in MA on the Grandma ticket - Since it’s a good possibility Ms. Warren will be hawking her Chow Wow Pow cookbooks and other ancestral trinkets at the convention to raise funds to fend of popular Scott Brown – the Current Senator running on – Good Grief – Common Sense – perhaps she can talk some sense in to the anarchists attending – and save the day for the rank and file?

According to Tampa Bay Online, both major parties are not taking any chances, and will be opening their conventions with; Prayers having the conventions “Blessed” prior to engaging in the political back and forth, the anarchists the missing members, and the fact that a pro-union political party is holding it’s convention in an anti-union state. – On the Republican side, they are consistently opening and closing Conventions, town meetings, what-have you with blessings and prayers, so it’s anticipated, and expected, and – nothing to see here move along type news.

Last note on the nervous breakdown the media is not even attempting to hide anymore, as one after another either puts their foot in it (and is subsequently fired), or makes things up and or just writes as if Obama is going to win big in November (See Ostrich and behavior and what should be happening: - Politico (yes the very same) now is asking the pivotal question of Mitt Romney (first he’s boring, then he’s a bully, then he’s an outsourcer, then he’s rich, then he’s a Republican! (woops), then he’s lacking this, or has too much of that - the Google News Alerts are consistently demeaning and worse, consistently more desperate and ridiculous – which tells anyone with access to two to four years of presidential polling data – Mitt’s the guy, and they’ve got nothing on him – the latest “Smack of Desperation Award” to: Politico for their piece this weekend on:
Mario Cuomo asking Romney to “Show him (Cuomo) that he’s (Romney) not Richard Nixon!!!

No kidding.

Next week it will be: What Romney and Calvin Coolidge have in Common!
(Answer in advance, both Fiscal Conservatives, both from Massachusetts)

The Gist: The writes of the piece wanted to know more about Romney’s plan (instead of going to the Romney website and looking at the document), specifically in areas of “immigration, balancing the budget, foreign policy and Wall Street regulation.” – So they called in an expert:

Mario Cuomo, the former three-term governor of New York who spent a decade as the North Star of liberal Democrats after keynoting the party’s 1984 convention. In an interview, Cuomo said Romney’s “playing the Nixon game. Nixon said, ‘I have a plan but you won’t know it until you elect me as president.’ ” (Politico)

Cuomo then gets into the Massachusetts race, chastising Scott Brown to do the same for Lizzie (Grandma) Warren so she can take the Brown plan to the President (Obama) and have him figure it out!

Apparently, Romney isn’t giving the Democrats enough information! They have nothing to go one, nothing to figure out – however, memory serves that just a few years ago, and on an ongoing basis - the Democrats passed a bill that is currently on the chopping block of the Supreme Court at the behest of several states ad the American Public, all on a promise by then Speaker of the House – Nancy Pelosi – who infamously said – “You’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it!”
(Video clip below funny if it weren’t so heartbreakingly disturbingly true!)



Now, Democrats want transparency from Mitt Romany?!! Seriously? Romney is, let’s face it, even from Conservative Standards, as transparent as they come, not over the top, but he asks and answers, and thus the witch hunt or inability of top Democrats and their surrogate press to find links or get answers they want (notice, note: answer that to do not play into editorial content will not be considered transparent, rather a dodge.)

Elizabeth Warren on the national stage may be being groomed to be the next Obama, (see Petition from Weekend piece on Warren at the 2016 convention) This Obama appointed Harvard Professor of dubious background and even less credentials that the current White House Occupier, who runs ads in Massachusetts where she’s running, not mentioning the Democrat Party once in the 30 second video (of which there are several), is consistently being touted in the national press – Brown certainly has a lot on his plate as the MA media is in Warren’s back pocket (what else is new) and Brown is left with nothing but the people – sounds eerily familiar to the last roundup – only Coakley was at least a respected pol (which is rare in MA – she was not indicted), she was up by 15 points in the Boston Globe Polls, everyone and their bother from Washington to New York and Boston though she was a shoe in – and – somehow, the voters said no and elected Brown. Look for a repeat.
As to the Romney Obama Matchup – although Romany is looking at the all important swing states, careful attention should be paid to the 10 states where Obama still has a job approval rankings of 50% or higher: These are the states he is most likely to carrying a presidential election – no matter the dream act, no matter if they rise the dead, bus in voters, register their dogs, their 10 year olds, UN diplomats:

From Gallup: (3 consecutive years in a row): From January 1st 2012: States where the President Enjoys a 50% approval rating are: DC (81.1%), HI (56.1%), MD (55.1%), MA (55.1%), CT (55.%) NY (54.7%), VT (51.3%), DE (50.9%), NJ (50.8%), IL (50.4%) and CA (50.1%) - as with any polling data that is ongoing and rolling – there is a margin of error – is approximately 5% (with a 95% confidence rate) (Gallup). The article then goes on to speak to the Electoral College – if not a fan of the Electoral College, one could say look at the popular vote – either way with the other 40 states in varying degrees of apathy, one might hazard to guess after 3 years of consistently dismal polls, and the same results, The President may be likable, he may be funny, he may be able to carry a tune, while Mitt Romney, has an actual sense of humor, is not as likeable, and cannot sing a note, but..He’s not: Barack Obama and he does have experience as Governor and in the Private Sector.

After watching the polls and the tracking data for the landslide of 1980, with a three way race no less, the above scenario is almost – the same.



Please, Call in the Calvery! Hillary! Image deathandtaxes.com

This is why the hysteria is growing, the tapes of Romney are being badly edited and the rest will, as they say, be history. This is not to say that one should think anything is in the bag – but it’s out there, and that’s a big huge, but.
The biggest question hanging out there is why on earth haven’t the Democrats done the sensible thing: Draft Hillary Clinton – save their party – save the nation, and stop the whole Chow-Wow-Occupy-Yet-Another-Unqualified-Progressive Petition for 2016 – Someone needs to get a handle on them before the Party implodes? Things to Consider: Clinton is not Teddy Kennedy, but Obama is not unlike Carter - The Convention, it’s their party, they make and break the rules all the time, just make the plans to nominate her now for crying out loud! In that way, the General Public, would at least have a contest on their hands one where, a woman of intellect, integrity and ability would have a shot.

Elizabeth Warren, Democrat for U.S. Senate MA Running Against Scott Brown, U.S. Senator (R)-Ma – 4 Debates “Agreed to” - Warren DNC 2016 Petition?

Meanwhile there's a group that is Petitioning to Have Warren Headline Dem Convention in NC – the Female Obama?



Is Nancy Grooming Warren to be the Next Obama? - Two Ladies out to Lunch - image: Forbes


Both the Warren and Brown Campaigns have found four venues that would make both camps happy enough – and now there are four debates scheduled. (Boston Globe) . This includes one in Springfield, MA, the venue has not yet been decided, according to the Springfield MA Republican website- Masslive. That said, Brown certainly got his way – and good for him and the people of the Commonwealth – the debate that most media is whining about – a Debate at the Kennedy Institute held at the behest of Vikki Kennedy and carried on – get this – MSNBC – with No local MA media – (i.e. a fund-raiser for Warren), was shot down by Brown on a few counts – the one which we don’t hear much about is the fact that no local media was included.

Of course, Warren has, as far as anyone knows, basically run her campaign as a “name a party” – not mentioning in any ads run by the Warren Campaign that she is – a Democrat. Her You-Tube Channel www.youtube.com/user/ElizabethForMA"> *See Date of Birth 103 clearly defines videos shot for and by Democrats and those for public consumption (i.e. commercials) – the question on everyone’s minds? – Why is Lizzie Warren – of Chow Wow Pow fame (who really plagiarizes a flipping cookbook? ) – Not fessing up to being a Democrat in, of all states, Massachusetts? – Why is she coming off sounding like an Independent?

Because she’ running against one – No matter how hard the DNC (or the Mass. Equivalent) tries to turn Brown in to some sort of Republican wing-nut – the guy’s one of the most respected (by both parties) Senators in Washington – because, he’s not partisan – he’s wired to the people.

They have to hate that – nothing to run on, but a devious past (one mistaken ancestry and a teed off Cherokee Nation – she could have said she was descended by Gypsies (harder to prove) and had herself a reality TV wedding! – She’s worked with Obama, crafted legislation that was not necessary – (or would not have been necessary had they not had – Dodd Frank) – then, she taught at Harvard, where she is now insisting she was the first woman to breast feed her child. We’re not certain if that’s at Harvard, or in Warren’s case and proclivity for stretching the truth – in general.

It is a bit interesting however, for a woman who has no clue, to be running against someone who, for the most part, is the best shot Massachusetts has had in 100 years at a Senator who respects all parties in Massachusetts – and the bulk of his legislation as a State Senator and then as a U.S. Senator has been about – helping women and children.

This blogger admitted is a fan of Scott Brown – the Senator, simply because he struck as an independent, said he would legislate that way, and stuck to his promises. Unlike so many others who seem to... go their own way. Two of this bloggers favorite politicians – Hillary Clinton and Senator Brown – because of how they legislate – who they stick up for, what they accomplished while on the job, not because of party - but their constituents – the only regret from 2012 – Clinton decided not to mount a challenge – she would have been the first woman to a) successfully best an incumbent President and b) win the White House – of course, that’s this opinion.

On Warren, well, she’s no Hillary Clinton, heck she’s not even close to the most despised woman in American – Nancy Pelosi (if one has to ask why, one is clearly living in a bubble) – (short historical note: They had to redistrict California down to a very small corner and make San Francisco a district, just so Nancy could get, then keep the job – just saying – had they left it intact, (included some of the original Bay area communities originally in the 8th District, she would not have been Speaker, but a footnote.) Therefore, no matter what one takes away from the nice, grandmotherly Warren, remember one word, and repeat frequently – competence.

If one thinks that not knowing one’s own ancestry, or being a Harvard professor is plenty of experience to write legislation, and become a distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth – by all means vote for the Very Progressive, “I started Occupy Wall Street” (forgot about that claim – she’s the female Al Gore!) Warren. Meanwhile, rest assured, the Progressives have a plan: they want her to deliver the keynote speech in 2016 – then launch herself on the American People as the Next Great Hope and Change.
Videos:


Elizabeth Warren Commercial – sans Party – just the “truth about Warren”


MSNBC Video for Warren for Senate shown at the MA Democrat Convention

A few "inconvenient truths":

By the Way – the Consumer Protection Agency was established under President Roosevelt (also a Democrat)

The Bureau (more, bigger, government) that was established by Obama-Warren is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – duplicating the work of the original bureau, but creating more Jobs – that taxpayers fund.

What about Scott Brown Legislation and how did he vote anyhow? It is not too difficult to be able to find out the reality (not what the beloved media, the Democrat Party, some Rapid Republican’s, and a Warren campaign are saying).
Current Bills by Brown this year to date (or Sponsored)
First 99 of 199 Additional Bills either Written or Sponsored by Brown in 2012

Items 1 through 100 of 119
1. [111th] S.11 : A bill to restore the application of the 340B drug discount program to orphan drugs with respect to children's hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 9/28/2010) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 9/28/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
________________________________________
2. [111th] S.18 : No Entry for Supporters of the Iranian Regime Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 9/29/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
________________________________________
3. [111th] S.455 : Five-Star Generals Commemorative Coin Act
Sponsor: Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] (introduced 2/23/2009) Cosponsors (73)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/23/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
________________________________________
4. [111th] S.504 : A bill to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Sponsor: Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] (introduced 2/27/2009) Cosponsors (79)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/27/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
________________________________________
5. [111th] S.987 : International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 5/6/2009) Cosponsors (42)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations; House Foreign Affairs
Senate Reports: 11Ð-344
Latest Major Action: 12/16/2010 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 241 - 166 (Roll no. 645).
________________________________________
6. [111th] S.1275 : National Foundation on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition Establishment Act
Sponsor: Sen Warner, Mark R. [VA] (introduced 6/16/2009) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 11t-332 [GPO: Text, PDF]
________________________________________
7. [111th] S.1606 : Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2009
Sponsor: Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] (introduced 8/6/2009) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 8/6/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
8. [111th] S.1611 : Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009
Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] (introduced 8/6/2009) Cosponsors (26)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 8/6/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
________________________________________
9. [111th] S.1744 : Enhancing Flight Crewmembers' Training
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 10/1/2009) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 10/1/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
________________________________________
10. [111th] S.2902 : Federal Acquisition Institute Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 12/17/2009) Cosponsors (6)
Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; House Oversight and Government Reform
Latest Major Action: 12/14/2010 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
________________________________________
11. [111th] S.2977 : A bill to prohibit the use of Department of Justice funds for the prosecution in Article III courts of the United States of individuals involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Sponsor: Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] (introduced 2/2/2010) Cosponsors (30)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
________________________________________
12. [111th] S.2995 : Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] (introduced 2/4/2010) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2010 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety. Hearings held.
________________________________________
13. [111th] S.3008 : Iran Democratic Transition Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Cornyn, John [TX] (introduced 2/11/2010) Cosponsors (20)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 2/11/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
________________________________________
14. [111th] S.3034 : National September 11 Memorial & Museum Commemorative Medal Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 2/24/2010) Cosponsors (45)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/24/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
________________________________________
15. [111th] S.3081 : Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 3/4/2010) Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
________________________________________
16. [111th] S.3095 : HELP Act
Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 3/9/2010) Cosponsors (19)
Committees: Senate Budget
Latest Major Action: 3/9/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
________________________________________
17. [111th] S.3148 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the treatment of Department of Defense health coverage as minimal essential coverage.
Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim [VA] (introduced 3/22/2010) Cosponsors (65)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 3/22/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
18. [111th] S.3184 : Child Protection Compact Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 3/25/2010) Cosponsors (27)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Senate Reports: 11Ð-337
Latest Major Action: 9/28/2010 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 624.
________________________________________
19. [111th] S.3247 : Fair Access to Credit Scores Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Udall, Mark [CO] (introduced 4/22/2010) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 4/22/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
________________________________________
20. [111th] S.3296 : A bill to delay the implementation of certain final rules of the Environmental Protection Agency in States until accreditation classes are held in the States for a period of at least 1 year.
Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (introduced 5/4/2010) Cosponsors (25)
Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
________________________________________
21. [111th] S.3327 : Terrorist Expatriation Act
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] (introduced 5/6/2010) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 5/6/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
________________________________________
22. [111th] S.3335 : Earmark Transparency Act
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 5/11/2010) Cosponsors (27)
Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Senate Reports: 11Ð-365
Latest Major Action: 12/14/2010 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 692.
________________________________________
23. [111th] S.3339 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced rate of excise tax on beer produced domestically by certain small producers.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 5/11/2010) Cosponsors (27)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 5/11/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
24. [111th] S.3396 : Supply Star Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 5/24/2010) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Senate Reports: 11Ð-319
Latest Major Action: 9/27/2010 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 605.
________________________________________
25. [111th] S.3434 : Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (introduced 5/27/2010) Cosponsors (33)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 5/27/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
26. [111th] S.3465 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the "Michael C. Rothberg Post Office".
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/9/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Latest Major Action: 6/29/2010 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 449.
________________________________________
27. [111th] S.3474 : Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] (introduced 6/9/2010) Cosponsors (26)
Committees: Senate Budget
Latest Major Action: 6/9/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
________________________________________
28. [111th] S.3477 : Blue Star/Gold Star Flag Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim [VA] (introduced 6/10/2010) Cosponsors (11)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 6/10/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
________________________________________
29. [111th] S.3497 : Oil Spill Prevention and Mitigation Improvement Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 6/16/2010) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 6/24/2010 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 111-653, pt. 5.
________________________________________
30. [111th] S.3551 : Fiscally Responsible Relief for Our States Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 6/30/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 6/30/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
31. [111th] S.3572 : United States Marshals Service 225th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act
Sponsor: Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] (introduced 7/13/2010) Cosponsors (67)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 7/13/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
________________________________________
32. [111th] S.3578 : Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act
Sponsor: Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] (introduced 7/14/2010) Cosponsors (25)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 7/14/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
33. [111th] S.3860 : A bill to require reports on the management of Arlington National Cemetery.
Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 9/28/2010) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs; House Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 11t-339 [GPO: Text, PDF]
________________________________________
34. [111th] S.3866 : AIR Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] (introduced 9/29/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
________________________________________
35. [111th] S.3920 : A bill to address national security threats and vulnerabilities that could undermine economic recovery and financial markets.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 9/29/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Major Action: 9/29/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
________________________________________
36. [111th] S.3946 : Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
Sponsor: Sen Baucus, Max [MT] (introduced 11/15/2010) Cosponsors (11)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 11/15/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
37. [111th] S.3958 : Empowering States to Innovate Act
Sponsor: Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] (introduced 11/17/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 11/17/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
38. [111th] S.3990 : Emergency Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 11/30/2010) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 11/30/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
39. [111th] S.4004 : Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination Act
Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John [NV] (introduced 12/2/2010) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 12/2/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
________________________________________
40. [111th] S.4008 : Stop Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] (introduced 12/3/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 12/3/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
________________________________________
41. [111th] S.4020 : Restoring the 10th Amendment Act
Sponsor: Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] (introduced 12/9/2010) Cosponsors (30)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 12/9/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
________________________________________
42. [111th] S.4029 : Preventing Sex Offenders Access to Children in Our Communities Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 12/15/2010) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 12/15/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
________________________________________
43. [111th] S.J.RES.29 : A joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
Sponsor: Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] (introduced 5/5/2010) Cosponsors (68)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations; Senate Finance
Senate Reports: 11Ð-279
Latest Major Action: 8/5/2010 By Senator Baucus from Committee on Finance filed written report. Report No. 111-279.
________________________________________
44. [111th] S.J.RES.30 : A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Mediation Board relating to representation election procedures.
Sponsor: Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] (introduced 5/11/2010) Cosponsors (40)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 9/23/2010 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 43 - 56. Record Vote Number: 239.
________________________________________
45. [111th] S.J.RES.32 : A joint resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War and reaffirming the United States-Korea alliance.
Sponsor: Sen Burr, Richard [NC] (introduced 6/16/2010) Cosponsors (11)
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 11t-201 [GPO: Text, PDF]
________________________________________
46. [111th] S.CON.RES.76 : A concurrent resolution to recognize and honor the commitment and sacrifices of military families of the United States.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 11/18/2010) Cosponsors (20)
Committees: House Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 12/13/2010 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
________________________________________
47. [111th] S.RES.413 : A resolution relative to the death of Representative John P. Murtha, of Pennsylvania.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 2/9/2010) Cosponsors (99)
Latest Major Action: 2/9/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
48. [111th] S.RES.436 : A resolution expressing support for the people affected by the natural disasters on Madeira Island.
Sponsor: Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] (introduced 3/4/2010) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
49. [111th] S.RES.451 : A resolution expressing support for designation of a "Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day".
Sponsor: Sen Burr, Richard [NC] (introduced 3/11/2010) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 3/19/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
50. [111th] S.RES.479 : A resolution expressing sympathy for the people of Poland in the aftermath of the devastating plane crash that killed the country's President, First Lady, and 94 other high ranking government, military, and civic leaders on April 10, 2010.
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 4/14/2010) Cosponsors (99)
Latest Major Action: 4/14/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
51. [111th] S.RES.487 : A resolution honoring the coal miners who perished in the Upper Big Branch Mine-South in Raleigh County, West Virginia, extending the condolences of the United States Senate to the families of the fallen coal miners, and recognizing the valiant efforts of the emergency response workers.
Sponsor: Sen Byrd, Robert C. [WV] (introduced 4/15/2010) Cosponsors (99)
Latest Major Action: 4/15/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
52. [111th] S.RES.572 : A resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, a Senator from the State of West Virginia.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 6/28/2010) Cosponsors (98)
Latest Major Action: 6/28/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
53. [111th] S.RES.593 : A resolution expressing support for designation of October 7, 2010, as "Jumpstart's Read for the Record Day".
Sponsor: Sen Murray, Patty [WA] (introduced 7/22/2010) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Latest Major Action: 9/21/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
54. [111th] S.RES.599 : A resolution designating August 16, 2010, as "National Airborne Day".
Sponsor: Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] (introduced 7/28/2010) Cosponsors (26)
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
55. [111th] S.RES.617 : A resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Theodore "Ted" Fulton Stevens, former Senator for the State of Alaska.
Sponsor: Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] (introduced 8/12/2010) Cosponsors (99)
Latest Major Action: 8/12/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Latest Action: 8/12/2010 Message on Senate action sent to the House.
________________________________________
56. [111th] S.RES.684 : A resolution recognizing the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 11/18/2010) Cosponsors (30)
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
57. [111th] S.RES.693 : A resolution condemning the attack by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea against the Republic of Korea, and affirming support for the United States-Republic of Korea alliance.
Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim [VA] (introduced 12/2/2010) Cosponsors (26)
Latest Major Action: 12/2/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
58. [111th] S.AMDT.3337 to H.R.4213 To reduce the deficit by establishing discretionary spending caps.
Sponsor: Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] (introduced 3/1/2010) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2010 Amendment SA 3337 ruled out of order by the chair.
________________________________________
59. [111th] S.AMDT.3348 to H.R.4213 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 3/2/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
60. [111th] S.AMDT.3365 to H.R.4213 To require the Comptroller General to report to Congress on the causes of job losses in New England and the Midwest over the past 20 years and to suggest possible remedies.
Sponsor: Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] (introduced 3/3/2010) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 3/9/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3365 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
61. [111th] S.AMDT.3391 to H.R.4213 To provide for a 6-month employee payroll tax rate cut, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 3/3/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2010 Amendment SA 3391 ruled out of order by the chair.
________________________________________
62. [111th] S.AMDT.3486 to H.R.1586 To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 3/11/2010) Cosponsors (10)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3486 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
63. [111th] S.AMDT.3579 to H.R.4872 To strike the medical device tax.
Sponsor: Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] (introduced 3/23/2010) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 3/24/2010 Motion to table amendment SA 3579 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 56 - 42. Record Vote Number: 79.
________________________________________
64. [111th] S.AMDT.3608 to H.R.4872 To protect the right of States to opt out of a Federal health care takeover.
Sponsor: Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] (introduced 3/24/2010) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 3/24/2010 Motion to table amendment SA 3608 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 58 - 41. Record Vote Number: 74.
________________________________________
65. [111th] S.AMDT.3652 to H.R.4872 To protect the integrity of Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense health care programs for veterans, active-duty service members, their families, widows and widowers, and orphans who have sacrificed in defense of our Nation.
Sponsor: Sen Burr, Richard [NC] (introduced 3/24/2010) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 3/24/2010 Motion to table amendment SA 3652 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 54 - 44. Record Vote Number: 83.
________________________________________
66. [111th] S.AMDT.3710 to H.R.4872 To strike the penalty for failure to comply with the individual mandate.
Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John [NV] (introduced 3/25/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 3/25/2010 Motion to table amendment SA 3710 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 58 - 40. Record Vote Number: 101.
________________________________________
67. [111th] S.AMDT.3738 to S.3217 To require the non-partisan Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that does not interfere with monetary policy, to let the American people know the names of the recipients of over $2,000,000,000,000 in taxpayer assistance from the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] (introduced 4/29/2010) Cosponsors (28)
Latest Major Action: 5/11/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3738 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 96 - 0. Record Vote Number: 137.
________________________________________
68. [111th] S.AMDT.3749 to S.3217 To require the Corporation to amend the definition of the term "assessment base".
Sponsor: Sen Tester, Jon [MT] (introduced 4/29/2010) Cosponsors (14)
Latest Major Action: 5/6/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3749 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 0. Record Vote Number: 132.
________________________________________
69. [111th] S.AMDT.3759 to S.3217 To maintain the role of the Board of Governors as the supervisor of holding companies and State member banks.
Sponsor: Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] (introduced 4/30/2010) Cosponsors (28)
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3759 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 91 - 8. Record Vote Number: 143.
________________________________________
70. [111th] S.AMDT.3778 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Udall, Mark [CO] (introduced 5/3/2010) Cosponsors (20)
Latest Major Action: 5/3/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
71. [111th] S.AMDT.3781 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 5/3/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/3/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
72. [111th] S.AMDT.3785 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] (introduced 5/4/2010) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
73. [111th] S.AMDT.3799 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] (introduced 5/4/2010) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
74. [111th] S.AMDT.3801 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 5/4/2010) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
75. [111th] S.AMDT.3807 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] (introduced 5/4/2010) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
76. [111th] S.AMDT.3832 to S.3217 To provide an orderly and transparent bankruptcy process for non-bank financial institutions and prohibit bailout authority.
Sponsor: Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] (introduced 5/5/2010) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 5/13/2010 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3832 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 42 - 58. Record Vote Number: 148.
________________________________________
77. [111th] S.AMDT.3838 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/5/2010) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 5/5/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
78. [111th] S.AMDT.3842 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] (introduced 5/5/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/5/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
79. [111th] S.AMDT.3866 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] (introduced 5/6/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/6/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
80. [111th] S.AMDT.3870 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 5/6/2010) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 5/6/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
81. [111th] S.AMDT.3872 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/6/2010) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 5/6/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
82. [111th] S.AMDT.3881 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/6/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/6/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
83. [111th] S.AMDT.3896 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] (introduced 5/6/2010) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 5/6/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
84. [111th] S.AMDT.3919 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Conrad, Kent [ND] (introduced 5/7/2010) Cosponsors (17)
Latest Major Action: 5/7/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
85. [111th] S.AMDT.3928 to S.3217 To apply recaptured taxpayer investments toward reducing national debt.
Sponsor: Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] (introduced 5/10/2010) Cosponsors (8)
Latest Major Action: 5/11/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3928 agreed to in Senate by Voice.
________________________________________
86. [111th] S.AMDT.3943 to S.3217 To establish a specific consumer protection liaison for service members and their families, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Reed, Jack [RI] (introduced 5/11/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3943 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 1. Record Vote Number: 145.
________________________________________
87. [111th] S.AMDT.3955 to S.3217 To provide for a study of the asset-backed securitization process and for residential mortgage underwriting standards.
Sponsor: Sen Corker, Bob [TN] (introduced 5/11/2010) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2010 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3955 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 42 - 57. Record Vote Number: 142.
________________________________________
88. [111th] S.AMDT.3962 to S.3217 To prohibit certain payments to loan originators and to require verification by lenders of the ability of consumers to repay loans.
Sponsor: Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] (introduced 5/11/2010) Cosponsors (10)
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3962 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay. 63 - 36. Record Vote Number: 141.
________________________________________
89. [111th] S.AMDT.3963 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/11/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/11/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
90. [111th] S.AMDT.3982 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] (introduced 5/12/2010) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/12/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
91. [111th] S.AMDT.4012 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] (introduced 5/13/2010) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/13/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
92. [111th] S.AMDT.4016 to S.3217 To improve consumer notification of numerical credit scores used in certain lending transactions.
Sponsor: Sen Udall, Mark [CO] (introduced 5/13/2010) Cosponsors (10)
Latest Major Action: 5/17/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4016 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
________________________________________
93. [111th] S.AMDT.4033 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/13/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/13/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
94. [111th] S.AMDT.4037 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] (introduced 5/13/2010) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 5/13/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
95. [111th] S.AMDT.4056 to S.3217 To improve section 412 and section 926.
Sponsor: Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] (introduced 5/17/2010) Cosponsors (11)
Latest Major Action: 5/17/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4056 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
________________________________________
96. [111th] S.AMDT.4060 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/17/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/17/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
97. [111th] S.AMDT.4083 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/18/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/18/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
98. [111th] S.AMDT.4140 to S.3217 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] (introduced 5/19/2010) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/19/2010 Senate amendment submitted
________________________________________
99. [111th] S.AMDT.4217 to H.R.4899 To provide for the submittal of the charter and reports on the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group to additional committees of Congress.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 5/25/2010) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/27/2010 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4217 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
________________________________________
100. [111th] S.AMDT.4218 to H.R.4899 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] (introduced 5/25/2010) Cosponsors (16)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2010 Senate amendment submitted

The Junior Senator from the State of Massachusetts, one Scott Brown (R), has been working hard for the poeple of hte Commonweath.

Also, It appears Browns' already done what Lizzie is promising to do with bi-partisan support – therefore from this perspective, unless and until Brown acts like a raging Partisan, self-serving politician, then he’s the best bet – and anyone who hides who they are? Either intentionally or unintentionally or worse, can’t put in an ad – I’m the Democrat Obama hired, and I started Occupy Wall Street, I was the first Woman to Breast Feed – ever at Harvard, elect me for Senate!! – well, then – who’s got your vote?

Living is Massachusetts can be trying, sometimes however, it can be amusing as all get out – the sad part, when the dead vote, people like Warren get elected – for 2012 – an eye must be kept on everything vote related. *(See initial Brown campaign for cheating, cheating, cheating and more cheating, and he still won by 5 points.)
To Search for any Legislature take the following steps:

Go to: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thoas.php# and bookmark that page.
#1 Middle Column, underneath “Search” will be a small line that says: advanced search: click there
#2 Select a Congress – the Congress is set up by Session within a year: There is a link below the Select a Congress that converts to year by year.
#3Choose you target: Congress or Senate
(for example under Congress, click on Pelosi, Nancy (CA-8)
Then ignore all else and click on Search all the way at the bottom of the middle column.

Be amazed.

Especially at the fact that there’s almost no legislation written by Nancy Pelosi?

Or Maybe not.

Try again! Have fun – it’s you’re elected official, and although one may not be a law professor, or a lawyer, or a doctor, if one has a grasp of rudimentary English, then one can get the gist of what the people we send to Washington are up to and whether or not they should be kept in office, or – voted off the Island that is: Washington DC.