Are you planning to watch Obama stand before Congress and insult the nation tonight? I’m not. I’ve also sent emails to my US Congresscritters and asking why they bother. Senator Bullmoose…Blunt will be speaking as the opposition which is a joke since he is known to vote as a Demlite whenever the chips are down.
So, why bother? Obama will brag that he’ll ignore Congress and write any edict on any issue at any time. Harry Reid will block any opposition, little that there will be with McConnell as the Minority Leader.
Even some of the Washington media are asking the same question.
Obama has been losing his TV audience — literally.
With the State of the Union proving ever less entrancing for viewers, the White House is desperate to turn the speech into a multiday event in an effort to bolster interest in Mr. Obama’s policies, even if people don’t tune in to hear his words.
The recent tradition is for presidents to deliver their State of the Union address, travel to several key cities, then head to the legislative trenches to fight for their key policies.
Mr. Obama has travel planned for Wednesday and Thursday with stops in Prince George’s County, Md., Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Nashville, Tenn. But he also has a lot more planned.
In an email to supporters, the White House urged Americans to “stick around after the speech” and go online to see White House aides expand on the key parts of the president’s address. The email also invited supporters to tweet their favorite moments and encouraged them to come back later in the week for more question-and-answer sessions, including Friday’s video exchange with the president.
“No matter how you watch, we have a version that fits your experience,” the White House said in its email.
That last paragraph is telling…”we have a version to fit all audiences.” If you don’t like one version, we’ll make another. Yeah, that really makes me believe in your liberal fantasy.
President Obama, in the first of potentially many executive actions tied to his State of the Union address, will unilaterally increase the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts to $10.10 an hour, from $7.25, in an effort to build momentum for a minimum wage hike for all Americans.
The executive order, which had been pushed by progressive Democratic lawmakers, applies to all contractors performing services for the federal government and would affect more than 2 million employees, according to an administration official.
The president will then use Tuesday night’s address to press Congress to pass a Democratic plan to increase the overall federal wage to $10.10 over three years, then indexing it to inflation, while also raising the minimum wage for tipped workers, the official said.
Critics of the minimum wage push claim that raising the rate could have an adverse effect, discouraging businesses from hiring more workers at a time when the government is trying to spur job growth.
“The minimum wage is mostly an entry level wage for young people,” Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell told “Fox News Sunday.” “We have a crisis in employment among young people right now, and generation 18 to 30, people that got out of college, are finding there are no jobs for them. The last thing we want to do is have even fewer jobs for younger people.”
But the president is reviving the issue as he tries to focus again on the economy. Obama, who does not have the power to unilaterally raise the minimum wage for private sector workers, also used last year’s State of the Union speech to call for a federal minimum wage hike.
This will be a short post today, I’ve a number of errands to do.
The topic today comes from this news item—Budget Negotiators look a Military Pensions. The democrats, looking to maintain and preserve their political allies, the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, as it is better known, want to cut military pensions. Instead of trimming civilian personnel—union members, they plan to attack those who have placed their life in peril to defend this nation. I cannot describe how much this disgusts me.
Can savings from military pensions be part of the solution to avoid deeper cuts from defense next month?That’s an important question facing House-Senate negotiators as they try to close out a deal this week to avoid another round of sequestration in January and restore some certainty to the appropriations process for the remainder of this Congress.
The two sides appear close but Democrats are anxious about the level of savings being sought by Republicans from civilian federal workers. Finding some money on the military side of the equation could lessen this burden and make the package more equitable too from a political standpoint.
Indeed, the Pentagon has the greatest stake in some agreement and faces a further $21 billion cut in its 2014 budget if nothing is done. There is a greater recognition too –in Congress and among the Joint Chiefs— that it must come to terms with personnel-related costs, which are eating up more and more of what money remains.“Forty-four cents of every dollar we spend goes to military personnel,” said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R.-Calif.) “You look at Detroit, you look at General Motors, you look at what happens when you build up these costs, but we aren’t doing anything about it in our [defense] bill this year.”On the retirement front, President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget opened the door for the GOP by proposing to increase what federal employees contribute to their pensions: adjusting the number upward in three increments from .8 percent of pay to 2 percent.When this was last proposed, Congress instead decided to charge newly-hired workers even more. The administration proposal seeks to impose its earlier plan on those hired before 2013. The estimated savings are about $20 billion over the coming decade.
The article continues at the website. The column says that 44% of the Defense budget goes to military personnel. That slants the issue, that people, our active and retired troops are expense items, cost line items that can be manipulated to balance the DoDs budget. It’s easy to turn people—veterans, into numbers and ignore the OBLIGATION this nation has acquired to serve these people when they are no longer on active duty as they were prepared to serve us when they were on active duty.
Our veterans are NOT numbers to be juggled to preserve union jobs. They are obligations upon the nation to support them, through decent pensions and through medical, physical care and treatment through the VA. Instead, democrats hold them hostage to preserve their power base in SEIU and other public sector unions. That must end.