Home Office ministers regard the squeeze on family migration as key in their drive to bring annual net migration to the UK down Family members from outside Europe who come to join close relatives settled in Britain are expected to be denied access to welfare benefits for up to five years under further plans to cut annual net migration to be detailed on Wednesday. The immigration minister, Damian Green, is to announce new measures the government hopes will ensure that those who come to the UK through the family migration route integrate more fully into British society. They are expected to include a tougher English language test for those applying to come to Britain on a family visa. Ministers also want to reform article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family life and currently prevents deportation in some cases of close family members who have been living illegally in Britain. Home Office ministers regard the squeeze on family migration as a key part of their drive to bring annual net migration to the UK down to the “tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of thousands” by the time of the next election. So far ministers have tried to curb the flow of skilled workers from outside Europe, introduced measures to reduce the number of overseas student visas and to “break the link” between temporary migration and the right to apply to settle permanently in the UK. But the official figures show there is precious little scope for reducing annual net migration – which was running at 242,000 in the year to September 2010 – through the family migration route. The latest figures show 48,900 family migration visas were granted in 2010, of which 40,500 were spouses who were coming for marriage, civil or other partnership purposes, or spouses-to-be. The remaining 8,400 were dependents, including elderly relatives. Most are women from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Oxford University-based Migration Observatory estimates that changes to the family migration route are unlikely to reduce annual net migration by more than 8,000 at the most. Cutting welfare benefits for family members from overseas is likely to have only a limited impact. Relatives already have to wait for two years before they become eligible for welfare benefits, and it is thought that the change will not affect spouses who enter on spouses’ visas and choose to work and pay national insurance contributions. Ministers appear also to have drawn back from redefining the wider family eligible to come to the UK. The proposal to look at reworking the wording of “right to family life” is likely to prove difficult and open to human rights challenges. In advance of consultation, the Migration Observatory said the changes were limited in their impact because international human rights legislation restricts the government’s ability to prevent family unification. “Family migration has been a target for successive UK governments, to the extent that it is now largely limited to the nuclear family. The majority of family migrants are spouses,” says an Observatory briefing. “The government could attempt to increase the level of financial support that needs to be proved for a family member to be brought to the UK or demand higher levels of proof that the family member will integrate, but these policies could run into legal challenges. Equally, the government could prevent fiancées from being included as family members, but even this would only deliver limited change.” Immigration and asylum Welfare Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Off-duty officers hold ‘day of action’ in London in protest against 20% cut to police budgets More than 2,000 off-duty police officers from across England and Wales are to stage a mass rally in the heart of Westminster in protest at policing cuts. Wednesday’s “day of action” has been organised by the Police Federation to highlight the impact of a 20% cut in Whitehall grants to forces and fundamental reforms of police pay and pensions. The protest will be the first mass action by the police since January 2008, when more than 22,000 officers marched through Westminster in protest at the failure of the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith, to backdate a 2.5% pay rise. On that occasion, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said it was a disgrace that the then Labour government had “let the officers down”. The Police Federation expects several high-profile speakers to show their support, including the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper; the chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, Keith Vaz; the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde; and the general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber. Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “We have no doubt that a 20% cut to overall police budgets will lead to more crime. It simply won’t be possible to provide the same level of service to the public that we do now if we are losing officers, support staff, vehicles and stations. “We accept that cuts have to be made but we ask that the government acknowledges our unique status. Police officers do not have industrial rights, so it is vital that the home secretary honours the police pay negotiation process.” He said the federation was calling for a fair negotiation on pay and process and honesty over the impact of the cuts on policing. The home secretary, Theresa May, warned police earlier this year that the “extraordinary circumstances” meant they had to accept a two-year pay freeze and reforms to their terms and conditions to avoid losing thousands of frontline jobs. “No home secretary wants to cut police officers’ pay packages,” she said. “But with a record budget deficit, these are extraordinary circumstances.” Police Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Campaign supported by Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party movement fails to muster two-thirds majority needed A Republican campaign to defend America against a sweeping assault on personal freedoms – or energy-saving lightbulbs as they are more commonly known – went down in defeat on Tuesday night. The result is a rejection of one of the great causes of the conservative Tea Party movement: the repeal of a 2007 law promoting environmentally efficient lighting. Presidential contender Michele Bachmann and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck had dismissed the legislation as an assault on personal freedom. In a speech in New Orleans last month Bachmann declared: “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any lightbulb you want.” But Tuesday night’s vote in the House of Representatives failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed under special rules invoked by Republicans to fasttrack the repeal. The bill did get a 233-193 majority in the House, however, and Joe Barton the Texan Republican behind the measure told US politics website Politico he would try again to get the legislation through – by any means. “We can put it on an appropriations bill”, he said. “We can back it under a rule. I can try and go to some of the Democrats who didn’t vote for it and figure out a way to get them to consider voting for it in a different format.” The Texan said he had originally counted on getting more than 300 votes for the measure including help from some Democrats. But the Republicans’ hopes of using the defence of old-fashioned 100 watt bulbs as a rallying cry for freedom had already begun to dim by Tuesday night. The party cast the 2007 measure, which was signed into law by George Bush, as an outright ban on the familiar 100 watt bulb, and even an affront to its inventor Thomas Edison. In their view encouraging the adoption of curly lightbulbs was yet another example of government overreach by Barack Obama. Saving the lightbulb was not a traditional Republican cause, however. The original 2007 bill had strong Republican support; it was even crafted in part by Fred Upton, now the chair of the House energy and commerce committee. Upton, anxious to reinforce his conservative credentials, has since recanted: he voted for the repeal of the measure. The defence of the 100 watt bulb seemed in the Republican mind to be a winner until the run-up to the vote, when lighting manufacturers such as Philips and General Electric joined the White House, Democrats, and environmental organisations in opposing the Republican campaign. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told reporters last week the 2007 measure was actually aimed at raising efficiency standards for all new bulbs by more than 25% beginning in 2012. The companies pointed out, meanwhile, that they were already shifting to newer LED and compact fluorescent bulbs. It also became more difficult for Republicans to maintain the argument that the new energy-saving bulbs were a burden on consumers. Although energy-saving lightbulbs do cost more than the old-fashioned variety, environmental organisations argued that the new standards would save the average American household around $85 a year (£50) in electricity costs. Energy United States Energy efficiency Ethical and green living Republicans US politics Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Campaign supported by Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party movement fails to muster two-thirds majority needed A Republican campaign to defend America against a sweeping assault on personal freedoms – or energy-saving lightbulbs as they are more commonly known – went down in defeat on Tuesday night. The result is a rejection of one of the great causes of the conservative Tea Party movement: the repeal of a 2007 law promoting environmentally efficient lighting. Presidential contender Michele Bachmann and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck had dismissed the legislation as an assault on personal freedom. In a speech in New Orleans last month Bachmann declared: “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any lightbulb you want.” But Tuesday night’s vote in the House of Representatives failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed under special rules invoked by Republicans to fasttrack the repeal. The bill did get a 233-193 majority in the House, however, and Joe Barton the Texan Republican behind the measure told US politics website Politico he would try again to get the legislation through – by any means. “We can put it on an appropriations bill”, he said. “We can back it under a rule. I can try and go to some of the Democrats who didn’t vote for it and figure out a way to get them to consider voting for it in a different format.” The Texan said he had originally counted on getting more than 300 votes for the measure including help from some Democrats. But the Republicans’ hopes of using the defence of old-fashioned 100 watt bulbs as a rallying cry for freedom had already begun to dim by Tuesday night. The party cast the 2007 measure, which was signed into law by George Bush, as an outright ban on the familiar 100 watt bulb, and even an affront to its inventor Thomas Edison. In their view encouraging the adoption of curly lightbulbs was yet another example of government overreach by Barack Obama. Saving the lightbulb was not a traditional Republican cause, however. The original 2007 bill had strong Republican support; it was even crafted in part by Fred Upton, now the chair of the House energy and commerce committee. Upton, anxious to reinforce his conservative credentials, has since recanted: he voted for the repeal of the measure. The defence of the 100 watt bulb seemed in the Republican mind to be a winner until the run-up to the vote, when lighting manufacturers such as Philips and General Electric joined the White House, Democrats, and environmental organisations in opposing the Republican campaign. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told reporters last week the 2007 measure was actually aimed at raising efficiency standards for all new bulbs by more than 25% beginning in 2012. The companies pointed out, meanwhile, that they were already shifting to newer LED and compact fluorescent bulbs. It also became more difficult for Republicans to maintain the argument that the new energy-saving bulbs were a burden on consumers. Although energy-saving lightbulbs do cost more than the old-fashioned variety, environmental organisations argued that the new standards would save the average American household around $85 a year (£50) in electricity costs. Energy United States Energy efficiency Ethical and green living Republicans US politics Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Supplier to Nike, Adidas, Puma, H&M and Lacoste accused of discharging dangerous chemicals into Chinese water systems A Chinese conglomerate supplying Nike, Adidas, Puma and other leading brands has discharged hormone-disrupting chemicals and other toxins into the country’s major water systems, according to a new Greenpeace investigation that raises questions about corporate responsibility for the firms they do business with. The environmental pressure group has also linked hazardous textile plants in the Yangtze and Pearl river deltas to Lacoste, H&M and half a dozen other international fashion brands despite many of those companies’ claims to set high environmental standards in their supply chains. The allegations follow a series of high-profile pollution scandals at Chinese firms that provide materials for multinational corporations. Chinese environmental activists say these cases highlight the hypocrisy of western outsourcers who promise high safety standards for rich consumers at home even as they trade with firms that benefit from lax environmental regulations overseas. In their one-year investigation into China’s textile industry – the world’s largest, with 50,000 mills – Greenpeace campaigners collected samples from factory discharge pipes and sent them for analysis at laboratories at Exeter University and in the Netherlands. They discovered a range of persistent pollutants in the wastewater from two major plants. The Youngor facility in Ningbo, near Shanghai, was found to have discharged nonylphenol, an endocrine disruptor that builds up in the food chain, perfluorinated chemicals, which can have an adverse effect on the liver and sperm counts, as well as a cocktail of other toxins. These chemicals were detected in small quantities, but they are hard to break down so they tend to accumulate in nature to dangerous levels. Many were found in fish during an earlier study of toxins in the Yangtze food chain. Although the chemicals are not yet illegal in China, they are banned in the EU and many developed nations. Youngor is China’s biggest integrated textile firm and boasts some of the country’s most advanced technology for dyeing, weaving and printing. Its Ningbo plant is also home to an in-house research centre and a Japanese-made sewage treatment system. Greenpeace says Nike, Adidas, Puma, H&M and Lacoste have confirmed a business relationship with Youngor though all denied making use of the plant’s wet processes, which are likely to be responsible for the pollution discharges into the Fenghua river. Adidas said its only relationship with the Youngor is for the cutting and sewing of fabrics. “Adidas does not source fabrics from Youngor Group, which would involve the use of dyestuffs, chemicals and their associated water treatment processes,” the company said in a statement. “We continue to engage with Greenpeace and have offered our full support and cooperation. In response to questions from the Guardian, Puma also said its involvement was limited to a non-polluting subsidiary that it regularly audited. “Our relationship to Youngor Group is, according to our information, restricted to the ready-made garments factory Youngor Knitting, which is not involved in any discharges into the Fenghua and does not operate any industrial wet processes. We are currently in contact and discussion with Greenpeace and open for further cooperation on our chemicals policies.” H&M said its business partner, Ningbo Youngor Yingchen Uniform, was a discrete legal entity within the Younger International Garment City complex that did not contribute to discharges into the Fenghua river. The company said its code of conduct only applied at suppliers with which it had a business relationship. “However, we share the general concern about discharges of hazardous chemicals into the environment,” H&M said. “That is why we run a set of activities and procedures to limit and eliminate hazardous chemicals and improve overall environmental standards throughout our value chain and the entire industry.” Greenpeace says the foreign firms need to insist upon higher standards throughout their supply chains. In addition, the group says the brands have a moral obligation to phase out hazardous chemicals not just in the final product sold to first-world consumers but also in the industrial process that affect workers and the environment in developing nations. “These companies are doing business with a polluter. We are not accusing them of being evil, we are challenging them to take the lead on eliminating toxins,” said Li Yifang, who headed the investigation at the Greenpeace China office. “There is no safety limit for these chemicals because they accumulate. So we ask Nike and the others to help phase them out over a reasonable time frame. That would send a signal to the whole industry.” The other polluter accused in the report was Well Dyeing Factory in Zhongshan, Guangdong Province, which is said to have discharged a range of heavy metals, including chromium and copper, in addition to alkylphenols, nonylphenols and other organic chemicals. Greenpeace noted the factory released hazardous effluent into the Shiji River at night – a common practice by factories in China that want to avoid scrutiny from governmental inspectors. Many other factories are likely to be guilty of even worse pollution but their activities go undetected because they bury their discharge pipes or mix their emissions with the effluent from other industrial plants. Greenpeace says it has approached both Chinese firms with its findings. Youngor has reportedly agreed to work with the environmental group to eliminate toxic chemicals, while Well Dyeing has denied it has a problem. China has been the world’s biggest exporter of textiles since 1995, but other industries have made a big impact on the economy and environment. Last year, a coalition of Chinese environmental groups traced a link between lead and cadmium contamination scandals and the production of materials for mobile phone batteries and computer circuit boards for foreign technology companies. In a follow-up study earlier this year, the activists reporteddischarge violations at several Chinese firms that are thought to be part of Apple’s supply chain. Many foreign firms privately complain that environmental groups hold them to higher standards than their Chinese counterparts, which undermines their competitiveness. The campaigners respond that the big companies profit from their brand reputation and thus have a greater responsibility to set a positive example. Pollution Retail industry Greenpeace China Activism Jonathan Watts guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The political prognosticator Charlie Cook appeared on National Public Radio on July 11 and summarized perfectly the media narrative on the debt-limit battle. Boehner, Cook said, “is not a burn-the-barn-down, break-the-china kind of guy [and] he does not necessarily reflect the views of a majority…of the House Republican Conference, who are of the burn-the-barn-down, break-the-china mold.” Hold on here. Why is it destructive to insist on a limited government? Why is fiscal sanity equated with pyromania? Cook was brought on as a “nonpartisan” analyst, but there’s nothing either civil or accurate in casting conservatives as barn-burners. This is the “nonpartisan” Washington narrative of the budget talks: Reasonable Obama vs. Dangerously Unhinged Republicans. The establishment is imbibing deeply of the David Plouffe spin that somehow, a reckless, unsupervised Congress spent all the money and Barack Obama was too busy golfing to notice, as if he didn’t sign every spending bill. It’s as if he didn’t aggressively shovel ObamaCare and almost a trillion dollars of “stimulus” on top of the deficit mountain.
Continue reading …Throughout this painful ‘negotiation’ period, President Obama has boxed Cantor and Boehner into a corner. They only have two choices at this point: Hold a clean debt ceiling vote or let the Bush tax cuts go for anyone earning more than 250,000, or offer an equivalent package. Do you think Republicans would ever let go of tax cuts? Of course not, because then they have nothing in front of them for 2012 strategy. They desperately need to do nothing about the budget or tax revenues so they can accuse the Democrats of doing nothing. PoliticusUSA : As long as Obama holds his ground, the Republicans paralyzed by their own internal warfare will be left with two choices. They can either compromise which would both anger their base and help reelect this president, or they can hold their ground and watch their political fortunes go down the drain. Meanwhile, the Tea Party is gunning for John Boehner, hoping to replace him with Eric Cantor, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett calls the tea party faction in Congress ignorant fools , and everyone seems to have forgotten that Cantor is Wall Street’s boy , so it’s only a question of when he will start whipping the debt ceiling vote, not a question of “If”. Meanwhile, as Lawrence points out, the hostage was freed this weekend.
Continue reading …Pelley Cites Tea Party as ‘Problem’ as ABC Relays ‘Disgust,’ Pelley Prompts Obama to Hail Reagan’s Compromise ‘Virtue’
July 12, 2011 No Comment
In a relatively inoffensive interview with President Barack Obama for Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley implied the Tea Party (and maybe congressional liberals too) should be blamed for blocking a debt ceiling deal ( “Isn't the problem that a large number of the Members of Congress will not follow your leadership or the Republican leadership?”) and fondly recalled how “it wasn't that long ago when compromise in Washington was considered a virtue, not a vice.” Pelley touted how “Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but they respected each other, they liked each other and they got things done.” That allowed Obama to use Reagan to scold conservatives: “If Ronald Reagan could compromise, why wouldn't folks who idolize Ronald Reagan be willing to engage in those same kinds of compromises?” (That exchange came after Pelley imbued his session with importance as he pointed out “we spoke with the President in the same room where FDR broadcast his fireside chats.”) Meanwhile, over on ABC’s World News , Jake Tapper highlighted another scolding aimed at the Tea Pary, this one from a cranky contrarian: Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the deficit commission, said the American people are rightly disgusted. And he's personally bothered by Republicans undermining any chance of Speaker Boehner compromising. But Obama’s scare-mongering didn’t bother ABC where Diane Sawyer led, not by condemning it, but by trumpeting it: “With the economy on the brink over the debt talks, the President warns Social Security checks could be in jeopardy.” Pelley teased his newscast by conveying that less than high-minded polemical strike: “Tonight, the President tells us Social Security checks may be in jeopardy.” Pelley accepted the claim at face-value, opening: Good evening. It was a striking thing, today, to hear the President of the United States say that he cannot guarantee the 27 million Social Security checks that are due to be mailed August 3rd. The new CBS anchor also offered a balanced description beneficial to liberals as he insisted “both sides say they won't raise the limit without a deal to massively cut the federal deficit.” Democrats really want to “massively cut the federal deficit”? From the Tuesday, July 12 CBS Evening News: SCOTT PELLEY: Good evening. It was a striking thing, today, to hear the President of the United States say that he cannot guarantee the 27 million Social Security checks that are due to be mailed August 3rd. August 3rd is the day after the government will default on its debts if Democrats and Republicans do not agree to increase the nation's borrowing limit. Both sides say they won't raise the limit without a deal to massively cut the federal deficit. …. PELLEY, TO OBAMA: Every day, you bring the leadership into the cabinet room right next to the Oval Office, but I wonder, isn't the problem that a large number of the Members of Congress will not follow your leadership or the Republican leadership? …. PELLEY: In our interview today, we spoke with the President in the same room where FDR broadcast his fireside chats. It wasn't that long ago when compromise in Washington was considered a virtue, not a vice. PELLEY TO OBAMA: Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but they respected each other, they liked each other and they got things done. Do you like Speaker Boehner? PRESIDENT OBAMA: I do, and I think John would like to do the right thing. PELLEY: Do you trust him? OBAMA: I do trust that when John tells me something he means it. I think that his challenge right now is inside his caucus, but I think Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill are a great example. Ronald Reagan repeatedly took steps that included revenue in order for him to accomplish some of these larger goals, and the question is, if Ronald Reagan could compromise, why wouldn't folks who idolize Ronald Reagan be willing to engage in those same kinds of compromises? PELLEY: Do you regret any of the things you’ve said in all this? OBAMA: No, I think I have been pretty restrained. PELLEY: You told the Congress they don't do their work as well as their daughters do their homework. ABC’s World News , picking up after Tapper described Mitch McConnell’s fallback plan: JAKE TAPPER: …President Obama told CBS News that if this impasse is not resolved before default day, August 2nd, there will be an immediate effect on Social Security, veterans' benefits and Medicaid. OBAMA TO CBS NEWS: I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. FORMER SENATOR ALAN SIMPSON: This is turning into a laugh, except there's nothing funny about it. TAPPER: Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the deficit commission, said the American people are rightly disgusted. And he's personally bothered by Republicans undermining any chance of Speaker Boehner compromising. SIMPSON: If that the stuff that’s going on in my party, where the pettiness overcomes the patriotism, it's disgusting to me. TAPPER: Diane, a Democrat familiar are negotiations said that there was, this evening in that room, a growing recognition they need to put aside the talking points and get to work. But Diane, the clock is ticking.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media As John wrote about yesterday, Alan Grayson is going to run for Congress again in Florida. He joined Ed Schultz to talk about the current negotiations going on right now over raising the debt ceiling and he didn’t have too many kind words about our social safety nets being put on the table and for Republicans being given a complete pass for claiming we have to make huge cuts to the budget without explaining what those cuts are. As Grayson noted, if we ended a lot of our ill advised military adventures, that would go a really long way towards balancing our budget rather than asking it be taken our of the hides of everyday Americans. Ed Schultz asked Grayson about President Obama putting Social Security on the table during these debt ceiling negotiations and I don’t necessarily agree with the way Schultz characterized it since unfortunately we don’t know enough details about what either side is offering up during these negotiations. That said, I do agree that I don’t think our social safety nets should have been put out there as a bargaining chip so that the Obama administration might be able to use to make the Republicans look like the unreasonable fools that they are if they still refuse to make a deal. The problem with making that offer is what if the Republicans take it? Then what? Anyway, par for the course, Grayson as usual didn’t pull too many punches here with how he feels about all of this. Transcript below the fold. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. One of the things we‘ve been talking about is whether President Obama will draw a line in the sand when we need him to. Is the president trying to strengthen Social Security and Medicare? Or is he talking about crucial cuts? Let‘s bring in former congressman, Alan Grayson, who has been a fighter for the left since the day he got on the national scene. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. I want to listen to part of what President Obama said today about the entitlements and Medicare. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The vast majority of Democrats on Capitol would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements. And I‘m sympathetic to their concerns because they are looking out for folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable. And there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs. And What I try to explain to them is: number one, if you look at the numbers, then, Medicare in particular, will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Alan Grayson, you have been a man known for your unvarnished opinion. If you were in Congress today, what would be your advice and how would you handle this? FMR. REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D), FLORIDA: I would not vote for any cuts in Medicare, I would not vote for any cuts in Social Security, and I‘d grabbing everybody else by the collar and telling them they should do the same. Look, you know, the Republicans have been saying now for months that we need to cut $2 trillion out of the budget over the next 10 years, without ever saying what they would cut. They got a free ride for the past two months or three months talking about all these wonder cuts that are going to reduce the deficit, reduce the debt, without ever saying what they are. Now, I know a way to cut $2 trillion out of the deficit in the next 10 years. You could end the wars. You could end the wars in Afghanistan, you could end the war in Iraq, and Libya, those wars cost us $157 billion last year, and the cost is going up, not down. If you want to save $2 trillion, how about peace? Why don‘t we give that a try? SCHULTZ: Social Security is even a bigger deal, it seems like. Although Harry Reid was on “Meet the Press” I think a couple of months ago, said we didn‘t have a problem. But I guess now, the president wants to put it on the table. The president has acknowledged it‘s not part of the deficit problem, and I think that‘s starting to sink with in Americans. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems. Social Security, if it is part of a package, would be an issue of how do we make sure Social Security extends its life and is strengthened. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So, strengthened means cuts, OK? Let‘s get the code language out here. Any time you want to strengthen something, you are going ask consumers, who pay into the program that‘s been successful for all these decades, that they just got to do more for the top 2 percent. So, if it‘s not the source of the problem, why in the hell do we have to address it now? What do you think? GRAYSON: Because Washington has now divided between the meanies and weanies. That‘s the real two-party system today in Washington. The meanies and weanies. The meanies want to take Social Security and Medicare away from grandma and grandpa. The weanies are quite willing to go along with it and compromise. Well, people need Social Security and Medicare to live. And there‘s no compromise between life and death. There‘s no middle ground. The average person who retires in America today has less than $50,000 in savings. That‘s good for one, maybe two years, and those people live for close to— SCHULTZ: Yes. GRAYSON: There is no way anybody in America can get by without Social Security and Medicare, and that‘s what right wing in America wants to take away. I say, no, no compromise. We need to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I want to see Medicare cover dental work. I want to see Medicare cover hearing aids. I want to see Medicare cover actual medical needs. SCHULTZ: Is this president weak? Why isn‘t he saying what you‘re saying? Why does he throw $4 trillion out on the table when he knows that‘s an unrealistic number? Is he just trying to prove a point that the Republicans are never going to deal with him? Hell, anyone could have told me that last week. GRAYSON: He is the president. He‘s the leader of my party. So, I don‘t know exactly what to say. But I do this—all of this compromise hasn‘t accomplished anything useful for anybody on our side. It hasn‘t done any good at all. The president should be saying to people, the Republican Party is cruel. The Republican Party is bigoted. The Republican Party cares about tax breaks for the rich. SCHULTZ: Congressman, there‘s a lot of people who need your voice. Are you going to get back into this political arena? GRAYSON: Ed, I announced today that I‘m running for Congress again. And already, at our Web site, congresswithguts.com, hundreds of people have made a contribution. So, yes, I‘m back. SCHULTZ: It‘s good to have you back. Former Congressman Alan Grayson with us tonight here on THE ED SHOW, thanks so much.
Continue reading …
For people in Westland, Michigan, it’s an annual ritual to wallow, slather and generally gad about in glorious mud. About 5,000 people turned up the for the state’s 24th annual mud day, where mud is king and … well, you get the picture
Continue reading …