Republicans Voted to End Medicare: How Will You Pay?

Were the Bachmanns Really That Altruistic Taking in Foster Kids?

Were the Bachmanns Really That Altruistic Taking in Foster Kids?

There are 2,060,000 results for a Google search with keywords "bachmann 23 foster". And it's no wonder since Bachmann's constant mantra is " 5 biological kids and 23 foster kids" whenever she's being interviewed. But, as Bachmann takes wing toward the highest public office in the land, will these 23 seemingly selfless acts of altruism stand up to media scrutiny? Or will her resume, like the wax wings of Icarus melt under the glare? DB reader Betty comments: She took money from the state and her school district to home school her kids. The biggest scam justified as an exercise of our "freedoms". Parents receive a generous refund from their school district. They can spend that money on anything they want. These home schooled kids are some of the most socially challenged people later in life. The whole thing stinks. If someone wants to skip the public or private school scene, do it on your own dime, with no help from the state. She took money from the state to feed and house her 23 babysitters. (And didn't pay these teenagers for babysitting her 5 biological children). Marcus' family continues to take farm subsidies from the federal government. Their Christian counseling company doesn't provide health care to it's employees, but Marcus can get whatever foot surgery he wants because his wife can access a group insurance plan from the insurance exchange for federal employees. Our tax dollars subsidize that. So, you're welcome Michele. Because of government your in- laws didn't move in with you. Your kids stayed home from school every day. You had free babysitting service. And your husband will always have that lovely swish, courtesy of foot surgeries. ...and... If you ask people in Stillwater what they know about these foster children of the Bachmanns, they will say it's common knowledge that these kids were used to babysit her young children while she spent time at the capital in St. Paul. This was before she even won the seat or was "begged" to run for a MN Senate office. When she says that she was called by God or prayed and fasted for a sign from God as to whether she should take the political path, don't believe it. She specifically prepared herself and sought out groups to surround her, sought endorsements, cozied up to local party officials and built the power she needed to run. This takes a lot of time. A lot of time away from home, your job in and outside the home. These foster children were nothing more than a resume item and free labor. And my dear Canadian friend, there is a nasty little secret in the heartland that you may not be aware of. It was typical a few decades ago for farmers to "take in" orphaned children or children under the protection of the state, during planting time and/or harvest, and then return them to the state, claiming some kind of charge that the child or children were disobidient or tried to run away. The farmers basically make things up. Sometimes the state authorities went along with the arrangement. This doesn't happen today, but because the identiies of these children are protected by state and county authorities, we will never know the full story.

Wayne County Road F/unds Investigation

Conyers Introduces PATRIOT Compromise

**Follow Us on Twitter @HouseJudDems**

Contact: Nicole Triplett, 202-226-5543                                                                                  

Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2011                   

                                                                                                                             

Conyers Introduces PATRIOT Compromise

Calls on House Majority to Support Protections for Privacy and Civil Liberties

(Washington) – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) has introduced the “USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011,” the House counterpart to a bipartisan bill that recently passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The proposal makes meaningful improvements to the PATRIOT Act and related authorities, and has the support of the Obama Administration and the intelligence community.  The bill is co-sponsored by Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md).

“In sixteen days, three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are set to expire,” said Conyers.  “It is clear that many members of both parties still have serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act, including these three provisions.  But instead of discussing these concerns, the majority has introduced legislation that would make the Lone Wolf authority permanent and extend the business records and roving wiretaps for six years.  Their bill would make no improvements to the PATRIOT Act.  It includes no new protections for privacy.  It requires no reporting to Congress.  I do not support this approach.

“Instead, we should be open to negotiation and compromise.  I have introduced a bill that has already been reported out by the Senate Judiciary, a bill that has bipartisan support and the backing of the intelligence community.  For many, this bill will not go far enough; for others, it may go too far.  For me, the bill represents the reasonable middle ground.  With the short time we have—and with the need to find a measure that can win the support of the Senate and the Administration—I think this bipartisan compromise measure is the proper vehicle for moving this issue forward.”

A summary of the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 follows:

***

The USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011

A Compromise with Broad Support – This bill is essentially identical to the compromise measure that recently passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support (Mike Lee of Utah voted in favor).  It makes meaningful improvements to the Patriot Act and related authorities, yet has the support of the Administration and the intelligence community.  

New Sunsets – Section 2 of the Bill reauthorizes the Business Records, Lone Wolf, and Roving Wiretaps provisions for two and a half years - until December 2013.  For the first time, it puts a sunset in the use of National Security Letters.  Finally, it moves the sunset on the FISA Amendments Act from the end of 2012 to 2013 so that all these inter-related surveillance authorities can be considered together in a non-election year.

Factual Basis Requirement for Business Records Orders – Section 3 modifies the standard for obtaining a FISA court order to obtain business records.  It eliminates the overbroad presumption of relevance in these cases, and requires the Government to provide a written statement of the facts and circumstances that justify the applicant’s belief that the tangible things sought are relevant.  (DOJ says it already does this as a matter of practice so this would not be an operational burden.)  The bill contains additional protections for bookseller or library records.  These can be obtained only if the Government shows a direct connection between the records and a terrorist or other agent of a foreign power. 

Improvements to National Security Letter Process – The bill makes a number of changes to NSL practices and procedures, in response to the numerous abuses of this tool.

Gag Orders -- Section 5 clarifies the standards for including a gag order in a national security letter.  Section 6 significantly improves the process for challenging these gag orders, eliminating the one-year waiting requirement in current law and removing the power of high level government officials to foreclose judicial review by “conclusively certifying” that the gag order is needed.  This section also corrects the constitutional defects in NSL gag orders found by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), and implements the court’s suggestion for a constitutionally sound process. 

Factual Basis Requirement – Section 7 requires the FBI to keep a written record of the facts and circumstances on which it relies to support certain NSLs. 

                Minimization Procedures – Requires DOJ to implement minimization procedures for NSL collected information, just as it does for FISA collected information, and requires periodic review and notice to Congress regarding changes to these procedures.  (DOJ has already begun implementing such procedures, as an administrative matter.) 

Roving Wiretaps – Section 15 tightens up the use of roving wiretaps by requiring a description “with particularity” of the target of such wiretaps in cases where the targets name or identify is not known.  This will eliminate the possibility of so-called John Doe roving wiretaps.

Sneak and Peek Searches -- Current law requires notification of a sneak and peek (or delayed notice) search within 30 days.  Section 11 shortens this time to seven days, or a longer period if specifically justified. 

Improved procedures for FISA Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices -- Section 4 modifies the standard for Pen Register and Trap and Trace devices, which collect info on calls or emails to and from a particular communications facility.  The bill requires the government to provide a written statement of the facts and circumstances showing that the information to be collected is relevant to a national security investigation and so strengthens judicial oversight.  This section also requires minimization procedures for this type of collection, which are not required under current law, and makes those procedures subject to court review. 

Enhanced Public Reporting on NSLs and FISA – Sections 8 and 9 require enhanced public reporting of the number of NSLs issued each year, and an annual unclassified report on how FISA authorities are used, including their impact on the privacy of United States persons.  This report shall be readily accessible on the Internet. 

Enhanced Audits – Section 10 requires the DOJ Office of Inspector General to conduct audits on the use during 2007 – 2011 of the Business Records provision, NSLs, and the use of pen registers/trap and trace devices, including both the effectiveness of these tools and any improper or illegal uses.  This section also requires the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community to submit separate reports that also review these three provisions.  The audits covering the years 2007-2009 must be completed by March 31, 2012.  The audits for the years 2010-2011 must be completed by March, 31, 2013.  These due dates ensure that Congress will have time to fully consider the findings of the audits prior to the December 31, 2013 sunsets in the bill.

###

The 2012 Budget Collapse Continues

The 2012 Budget Collapse Continues

Posted by Jim Harper, May 9, 2011 at 9:00 am

One week from today, Congress can start considering appropriations bills, the bills that allocate spending on federal government operations for the 2012 budget year. If it does so, the budget process will be on schedule.

But something has to happen before these bills can go to the floor: there has to be a budget.

There is no fiscal 2012 budget.

Less than a month ago, we talked about thebeginning of the 2012 budget collapse. That collapse continues.

As we explained then, if a budget doesn’t happen, the Appropriations Committees don’t get the amounts they’re supposed to work with. If the Appropriations Committees don’t get the amounts they’re supposed to work with, they don’t move the spending bills. The Congress ends up passing short-term spending bills and making decisions on the fly that the American people don’t get to learn about until they’re already law.

But a Reuters news commentary says that a group of negotiators could come up with a budget before too long.

Lately, the spotlight has shone on what’s being called the “Group of Six Plus One” to save the day: Biden, three senators and three leading members of the House of Representatives. They carry plenty of political heft and the ability to whip rank-and-file members of Congress into supporting a potential deal to enact a wide range of spending cuts. But it is the Senate’s Group of Six, which is avoiding the limelight, that is seen as having the heavyweight expertise to sort out complicated budget issues, along with the willingness to consider tax increases and popular benefit program cuts needed for a long-term fix of the country’s fiscal mess.

We shall see. In the meantime, here are a few things you can do, especially if you are represented by a member of the House or Senate Budget Committee:

Sign our petition: “We Want a Transparent and Orderly Congress.” Do so after you create an account and log in, because then you can comment on the petition. We’re going to use the petition’s page to organize a non-partisan campaign to get Congress doing its job right.

Pass this information along to a friend or colleague. Things only change when people get organized. YOU need to organize the people around you. So send people you think would be interested a link to this blog post!

Contact your member of Congress: Tell him or her that you want to see a final budget agreement, and ask what date he or she expects that agreement to be finalized. Please post anything you learn here or on the “transparent and orderly” petition page. You should especially do this if you are represented by member of Congress on the House Budget Committee, listed below, or on the Senate Budget Committee, listed below that.

Your efforts can make a difference! Don’t delay! Push Congress to do its work!

House Budget Committee members

Paul Ryan (WI-01), Chairman Scott Garrett (NJ-05) Mike Simpson (ID-02) John Campbell (CA-48) Ken Calvert (CA-44) Todd Akin (MO-02) Tom Cole (OK-04) Tom Price (GA-06) Tom McClintock (CA-04) Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) James Lankford (OK-05) Diane Black (TN-06) Reid Ribble (WI-08) Bill Flores (TX-17) Mick Mulvaney (SC-05) Tim Huelskamp (KS-01) Todd Young (IN-09) Justin Amash (MI-03) Todd Rokita (IN-04) Frank Guinta (NH-01) Rob Woodall (GA-07)

Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), Ranking MemberAllyson Schwartz (PA-13) Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) Lloyd Doggett (TX-25) Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Betty McCollum (MN-04) John Yarmuth (KY-03) Bill Pascrell (NJ-08) Mike Honda (CA-15) Tim Ryan (OH-17) Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) Gwen Moore (WI-04) Kathy Castor (FL-11) Heath Shuler (NC-11) Paul Tonko (NY-21) Karen Bass (CA-33)

Senate Budget Committee members

Kent Conrad (ND), Chairman Patty Murray (WA) Ron Wyden (OR) Bill Nelson (FL) Debbie Stabenow (MI) Benjamin L. Cardin (MD) Bernie Sanders (VT) Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) Mark R. Warner (VA) Jeff Merkley (OR) Mark Begich (AK) Chris Coons (DE)

Jeff Session (AL), Ranking MemberCharles Grassley (IA) Mike Enzi (WY) Mike Crapo (ID) John Ensign (NV) John Cornyn (TX) Lindsey Graham (SC) John Thune (SD) Rob Portman (OH) Pat Toomey (PA) Ron Johnson (WI)

Farm Subsidies Become Target Amid Spending Cuts

WASHINGTON — When it comes to spending cuts, members of Congress like to say that “everything is on the table.” Except, generally, food. But now federal farm subsidies, long decried by policy makers as wasteful and antiquated but protected by powerful political interests, appear to be in serious danger.

This week, Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and the chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters, “We shouldn’t be giving corporate farms, these large agribusiness companies, subsidies. I strongly believe that.”

His budget proposal would take $30 billion out of the farm program over the next decade.

Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia and the majority leader, attended the first session of debt-limit negotiations on Thursday with a list of areas where he saw a potential agreement between Republicans and the White House, including farm subsidies.

A confluence of factors have lined up against the farm programs. While the rest of the economy remains largely stagnant, commodities prices and farm incomes have remained at a protracted high. The House Agriculture Committee, while still dominated by farm state members, is now peppered with freshmen who view cuts to these programs as an essential part of the broader attack on the federal deficit, the centerpiece of their campaigns.

Further, after taking a beating from constituents concerning their Medicare proposal last month, Republicans are eager to find an area of common ground with Democrats. Farm subsidies seem to fit the bill; conservatives condemn them as intrusions into the free market, liberals denounce them for encouraging environmentally harmful overfarming, and both sides see them as a form of corporate welfare.

What is more, some subsidies have placed the nation in violation of trade agreements, and members from both sides of the aisle have questioned why, with biofuel mandates creating such demand for ethanol, the government needs to subsidize it.

Powerful interests and political traditions continue to constrain efforts to cut subsidies. While all the free-market Republicans back reducing subsidies in general, some continue to support targeted aid like the subsidies long enjoyed by ethanol. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker and likely presidential candidate, has been assertively arguing in favor of maintaining ethanol subsidies in the face of intense criticism from backers of market reforms like the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

But in both parties there is a sense that support for subsidies is waning. This year, SenatorRichard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, one of the nation’s biggest farming states, told the state’s farm bureau to expect cuts. Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan and chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, told reporters at a state agriculture conference that “making sure that we’re doing our part in being fiscally responsible” would be the biggest challenge in the next farm bill.

Others are thinking in a similar vein.

“I have been telling folks that the pie is getting smaller,” said Representative Reid Ribble, a Republican freshman from Wisconsin who sits on the House Agriculture Committee. “I am hearing from constituents back home that they want to see the government have less involvement in the pricing. There is a kind of a tenor right now that will allow us to have a significant change.”

Farm advocates say they hope they can stave off the worst.

“The scrutiny of farm programs is stronger than ever,” said Chuck Conner, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. “It’s not that farmers don’t want to participate in deficit reduction,  but at the same time, we hope people appreciate that all other federal programs have skyrocketed, which is why we are in this mess, and farm subsidies have not.”

Historically, federal farm subsidies have operated like piles of laundry: there are constant efforts to make them go away, but they always rise right up again.

The program is rooted in the response to the Great Depression, when the nation enjoyed a largely agrarian economy and the federal government recognized that farmers lacked a safety net.

The program has evolved over the years into a series of direct payments, insurance programs, low-cost loans and other benefits. The programs come up for reauthorization every five years, and farm advocates lobby hard against efforts to meaningfully reduce them, though some have been reformed over the years.

“Substantial cuts to agriculture have already been made,” Ms. Stabenow said in an e-mail. “And we’ll continue measuring the performance of every program to reduce the deficit and maximize effectiveness.”

In 2011, taxpayers are projected to pay roughly $16 billion in aid to farmers through various programs, according to figures from the Congressional Budget Office.

The most controversial of these programs are the $5 billion in annual so-called direct payments to farmers of corn, soybeans and other crops, awarded simply for owning tillable farm land, even if they do not plant on it.

“If we can’t figure out a way at this point to trim these payments,” said Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, who has long fought against farm subsidies, “then it is just embarrassing.”

Large cuts to the agriculture subsidies will not go far in taming federal spending.

“Cutting farm subsidies doesn’t bring that kind of ongoing savings,” said  Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, comparing cuts to farm programs with longer term restructuring to entitlement programs like Medicare. “Still, it is a great one-time gain, and it means lower prices for consumers and is a good idea all around.”

Farmers and their advocates insist that the subsidies have been demonized and overstated.

“Every time you read an article saying Congress better be looking at farm programs I am scratching my head,” Mr. Conner said. “When people think of the U.S.D.A. budget they think of farm programs, but it is really more a rounding error.”

But Mr. Kind and others say the push for broad budget cuts is working in their favor.

“The political dynamics have shifted in light of deficit reduction,” he said. “I am cautiously optimistic.”

Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc. and Citizens Bank Regarding Alleged Lending Discrimination in Detroit

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc. and Citizens Bank Regarding Alleged Lending Discrimination in Detroit

Settlement Provides $3.6 Million to Ensure Equal Lending Services to African-American Community

WASHINGTON – Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc. (CRBC) and Citizens Bank of Flint, Mich., will open a loan production office in an African-American neighborhood in Detroit, invest approximately $3.6 million in Wayne County, Mich., and take other steps as part of a settlement to resolve allegations that they engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race and color, the Justice Department announced today.

The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, was filed in conjunction with the Justice Department’s complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.   The complaint alleges that CRBC, as the successor to Republic Bank, and Citizens Bank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibit financial institutions from discriminating on the basis of race and color in their mortgage lending practices.   The lawsuit alleges that Citizens Bank, and Republic Bank before it, have served the credit needs of the residents of predominantly white neighborhoods in the Detroit metropolitan area to a significantly greater extent than they have served the credit needs of majority African-American neighborhoods.   Those neighborhoods are easily recognized because t he Detroit metropolitan area has long had highly-segregated residential housing patterns, especially for African-Americans.  

“Discrimination in the provision of lending services based on race deprives communities of access to credit and leaves the residents of minority neighborhoods vulnerable to predatory lenders.   This type of discrimination is part of the web of intolerable practices that stripped vast amounts of wealth from communities of color in the last decade,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.  “We are pleased that Citizens Bank will partner with the Detroit community to invest in an area that was long neglected, particularly by the former Republic Bank.”

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade added:   “Today’s settlement will bring badly needed resources to Detroit and surrounding areas in Wayne County to assist in neighborhood stabilization.   It will also broaden opportunities for home ownership for families who have been unlawfully denied credit.  We applaud the bank’s cooperation and commitment to community development.”

“Racial or other illegal discrimination has no place in our credit markets,” said Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin.   “We are pleased that this settlement is designed to increase fair access to credit.”

Under the settlement, CRBC and Citizens Bank will invest $1.625 million in a partnership with the city of Detroit to aid in neighborhood stabilization by providing existing homeowners with matching grants of up to $5,000 to fund exterior improvements, $1.5 million in a special financing program to increase the amount of credit the banks extend to majority African-American areas in Wayne County, and spend $500,000 for outreach to potential customers, promotion of their products and services, and consumer financial education.   Citizens Bank also will open a loan production office in a majority African-American area in Detroit and conduct fair lending training for its employees.  The agreement also prohibits CRBC and Citizens Bank from discriminating on the basis of race or color in any aspect of a residential real estate-related or credit transaction.  

The lawsuit originated from a 2010 referral by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.  Citizens Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System.  

The Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are members of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.   President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.   The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.   The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.   For more information on the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov .

A copy of the complaint, as well as additional information about fair lending enforcement by the Justice Department, can be obtained from the Justice Department’s website at www.justice.gov/fairhousing .