PRESS RELEASE - July 27, 2010
CANDIDATE LUTZ CALLS CONGRESSMAN HUNTER OUT ON HIS ANTI-AMERICAN SANCTUARY CITIES "GAG-ORDER"
LUTZ SAYS IMMIGRATION POLICY TOO IMPORTANT TO BE USED AS PARTISAN ELECTION FOOTBALL
El Cajon, Calif. -
"Hunter wants to stop the debate, but he knows he can't pass his gag order -- he's just playing partisan politics to get in the news," said Ray Lutz, the Democratic challenger to California's 52nd Congressional Seat. "I say let the courts chew on Arizona's SB-1070 law and decide once and for all if it is unconstitutional. What's the harm in that?"
Lutz, 52, spoke in rebuttal to recent statements by Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, who this week introduced a bill into the U.S. House designed to block the department of justice from prosecuting its case against the State of Arizona for passing a law mandating all persons to carry immigration documents.
"Congressman Hunter's support of this Arizona-type of immigration control amounts to a type of Produce Tax," said Lutz. "If we had this kind of law affecting California's central valley, ag labor costs would shoot through the moon - and the cost for each family to put food on the table would increase considerably."
It is no big secret that in the last several decades millions of women have been forced to enter the workforce. For the most part in working America due to stagnant wages and decreased opportunity households are forced to subsist on two incomes. Essentially gone are the days when the father worked to support the family and the mother stayed home to raise the children and tend the house. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with women wanting to work, what is really wrong is the fact that when they do work they have consistently been paid less than men on average.
Today chief executives for the major oil companies answered questions to Congress about their own ability to respond to a tragedy caused by their own practices such as the one that occurred in the Gulf. They argued that continued offshore drilling was essential to American oil and gas supplies and to their own industry. They hung BP out to dry implying that the British oil company did not follow proper safety procedures while their companies do. While they called this disaster an "Aberration", it was pretty clear by the end of the hearing that their own companies were no more prepared than BP for such a disaster.
Populist Caucus Chairman Bruce Braley (IA-01) and House Trade Working Group Chairman Mike Michaud (ME-02) wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer today, urging them to make sure the upcoming jobs bill contains a strong "Buy American" provision.
From a press release Braley's office issued:
"Recently, as America has suffered the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, unemployment has risen and is now around 10 percent," the letter reads. "We believe that the shipment of American jobs overseas is a factor in this rising unemployment. If we are going to pass a strong job creation bill then it only makes sense to include strong Buy American provisions, to further ensure that the jobs created as a result of this legislation are created within the United States.
"We have an obligation to create jobs in America. While some would argue that Buy American is nothing more than a trade protectionist label, it is clear that these provisions would equate to greater investment, and greater job-creation, within the U.S. In addition, Buy American provisions are perfectly legal under current trade agreements and many other nations use similar mechanisms to protect their domestic manufacturers. Therefore, we feel that it is entirely appropriate that this language be included in any upcoming job-creation measure, and we believe that this provision is essential to creating and retaining American jobs.
Members of the House Populist Caucus, chaired by Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01), held a press conference on Thursday to endorse a bill that would "assess a small fee on Wall Street day traders to pay down the national deficit and invest in America's middle class families."
In the wake of Congress Officially Castrating the Public Option, two disturbing news stories have come out that suggest just how much we needed a public option and how very weak and impotent the one we have really is.
I hail from the red area of Western Kentucky as many know. This can have many frustrations in itself as we deal with not only Conservatives in our party who consistently vote Republican while registered Democrats, but we also are forced to deal with many in the national party ridiculing our unfunded efforts and writing us off as Democrats. I am sure many Democrats in other parts of the country feel the same way, ignored and powerless.
Senate Democrats have not given up on passing health care reform through normal procedures requiring at least 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. The problem is, several conservative Senate Democrats are on record opposing a public health insurance option. Meanwhile, a bill with no public option will have trouble passing the House of Representatives, where the overwhelming majority of the Democratic caucus supports a robust public option tied to Medicare rates.
The obvious political solution is to include some watered-down public option in the bill, giving cover to Progressive Democrats who insist on a public option while placating House Blue Dogs and Senate conservatives who want to protect private insurers' market share.
The "triggered" public option favored by many industry allies didn't fly, because most Democrats understand that the trigger would never be pulled. This past week, a new possible compromise emerged:
It was pulled out of an alternative idea, put forth by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and, prior to him, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to give states the power to determine whether they want to implement a public insurance option.
But instead of starting with no national public option and giving state governments the right to develop their own, the newest compromise approaches the issue from the opposite direction: beginning with a national public option and giving state governments the right not to have one.
I consider this idea's pros and cons after the jump.
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, interviews Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, regarding a Robust Public Option:
AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Grijalva, I also want to ask you about Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus and his close ties to the healthcare industry. [...]
REP. RAUL GRIJALVA: I think the product that has come out from his committee and himself, I really believe that it has no legitimacy in this debate. It's an insider product. It's there to protect the industry. It is not there to try to look for that middle ground. He is key in holding up deliberations, has been key in trying to work on a consensus, but everything you see in his legislation had to be approved by the industry before it became part of the plan. So I don't think it's legitimate.
[...] I consider Senator Baucus's proposal to be essentially an insider trader move to protect an industry and really doesn't have validity at all, both political validity or content validity.
It is with deep sadness that we awakened today to the news that our beloved Senator Edward M Kennedy has passed. Sen. Kennedy has suffered from brain cancer since May, 2008. He was technically from Massachusetts, but he was a Statesman before the world.
