Monday, November 30, 2009; Posted: 04:11 PM
by BWW NEWS DESK
The Broadway community will be included with participating venues across the city to commemorate World AIDS Day, December 1, 2009. The marquees of Broadway theaters in New York will be dimmed on Tuesday, December 1st, at exactly 8:00pm for one minute.
In addition to Broadway theaters, participating venues across the city include the Brooklyn Bridge, Lincoln Center, Madison Square Garden, the Chrysler Building, Radio City Music Hall, the Beacon Theatre and the Washington Square Park Memorial Arch.
A roster of notable guests, including United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and actress and UNAIDS Goodwill Ambassador Naomi Watts, will kick off the global Light for Rights campaign in New York City on World AIDS Day-Tuesday, December 1, 2009-as lights on numerous landmarks all over the city will be turned off to remember those lost to AIDS and turned back on to emphasize human rights for those living with HIV/AIDS around the world.
The global initiative, organized by UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS); amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research; Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS; and the World AIDS Campaign, will showcase the importance of fundamental human rights as citizens and organizations around the world fight AIDS.
The New York anchor event will begin at 6:00 p.m. in Washington Square Park in Greenwich Village, where the Secretary-General and Naomi Watts will be joined by Kenneth Cole, chairman, Kenneth Cole Productions and chairman of the board, amfAR; New York City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn; and 13-year-old Honduran AIDS activist Keren Dunaway-Gonzalez, who is living with HIV.
During the event, at 6:15 p.m., the lights on the Washington Square Park Memorial Arch will be turned off and then re-illuminated as the speakers talk about the importance of human rights when confronting the AIDS pandemic.
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Bloomberg Spent $102 Million to Win 3rd Term
By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: November 27, 2009
To eke out an election victory over the city’s low-key comptroller, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spent $102 million of his own fortune — or about $174 per vote — according to data released Friday, making his bid for a third term the most expensive campaign in the city’s history.
Mr. Bloomberg, the wealthiest man in New York City, shattered his own records: He poured $85 million into his campaign in 2005 (or $112 per vote) and $74 million into his first bid for office in 2001 ($99 per vote).
And the $102 million tab is likely to rise, because the mayor has not yet doled out postelection bonuses to campaign workers, which have routinely exceeded $100,000 a person in years past. That spending will not be reported until after his inauguration in January.
Mr. Bloomberg has now spent at least $261 million of his own money in the pursuit of public office, more than anyone else in the United States.
Government watchdog groups criticized the nine-digit price tag for his re-election, saying it undermined a widely admired campaign finance system that Mr. Bloomberg helped install in the city. Mr. Bloomberg did not participate in the system, which rewards candidates who raise small donations with large matching money from taxpayers.
The downside for the billionaire mayor: It caps spending at $6 million in the general election.
“He has done long-term damage to the system,” said Gene Russianoff staff attorney at the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Throughout the campaign, the mayor’s aides sought to project an air of inevitability, but data released on Friday revealed just how anxious they had become in the final weeks.
From Oct. 20 to Nov. 26, his campaign burned through $18.6 million, much of it on last-minute television and radio advertising.
As the mayor’s consultants and pollsters realized that a large bloc of undecided voters either favored Mr. Thompson or planned to stay home on Election Day, the campaign scrambled.
A few hours before the polls closed on Nov. 3, the campaign issued a flurry of recorded telephone calls to registered voters, in which Mr. Bloomberg requested that New Yorkers head to the polls and pull the lever for him.
At the start of the race, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides promised to run a political operation that mirrored the austere times. But that promise quickly evaporated.
The mayor’s campaign, which leased a 35,000-square-foot headquarters in Midtown Manhattan and paid a disc jockey $300 to perform as volunteers called voters, was widely expected to crush his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., the city’s chief financial officer.
Mr. Thompson, who participated in the campaign finance system, was outspent by 14 to 1, and he struggled to attract experienced staff members and raise money.
His press releases misspelled his own name; his aides groused about their jobs on Facebook; and his media team was so short on cash that it resorted to running 15-second blink-and-you-miss-it TV commercials.
But Mr. Bloomberg’s unpopular drive to overturn the city’s term limits law, his lavish campaign and a sputtering economy soured thousands of New Yorkers on him, even though most admired his record in office.
On Election Day, their frustration erupted into public view: Mr. Bloomberg won by fewer than 5 percentage points, at a cost of about $20 million for each point.
Turnout was unusually low — 585,000 New Yorkers cast votes for him, compared with 753,089 in 2005 and 744,757 in 2001, records show.
“He didn’t seem to get very much for his money,” Mr. Russianoff said.
Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the mayor’s campaign, said that a harsh political environment helped oust incumbents in Westchester County and New Jersey.
“The reason this anti-incumbent wave stopped at the Hudson’s edge,” Mr. Wolfson said, “is because the mayor ran an effective campaign based on eight years of success.
--nytimes
Published: November 27, 2009
To eke out an election victory over the city’s low-key comptroller, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spent $102 million of his own fortune — or about $174 per vote — according to data released Friday, making his bid for a third term the most expensive campaign in the city’s history.
Mr. Bloomberg, the wealthiest man in New York City, shattered his own records: He poured $85 million into his campaign in 2005 (or $112 per vote) and $74 million into his first bid for office in 2001 ($99 per vote).
And the $102 million tab is likely to rise, because the mayor has not yet doled out postelection bonuses to campaign workers, which have routinely exceeded $100,000 a person in years past. That spending will not be reported until after his inauguration in January.
Mr. Bloomberg has now spent at least $261 million of his own money in the pursuit of public office, more than anyone else in the United States.
Government watchdog groups criticized the nine-digit price tag for his re-election, saying it undermined a widely admired campaign finance system that Mr. Bloomberg helped install in the city. Mr. Bloomberg did not participate in the system, which rewards candidates who raise small donations with large matching money from taxpayers.
The downside for the billionaire mayor: It caps spending at $6 million in the general election.
“He has done long-term damage to the system,” said Gene Russianoff staff attorney at the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Throughout the campaign, the mayor’s aides sought to project an air of inevitability, but data released on Friday revealed just how anxious they had become in the final weeks.
From Oct. 20 to Nov. 26, his campaign burned through $18.6 million, much of it on last-minute television and radio advertising.
As the mayor’s consultants and pollsters realized that a large bloc of undecided voters either favored Mr. Thompson or planned to stay home on Election Day, the campaign scrambled.
A few hours before the polls closed on Nov. 3, the campaign issued a flurry of recorded telephone calls to registered voters, in which Mr. Bloomberg requested that New Yorkers head to the polls and pull the lever for him.
At the start of the race, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides promised to run a political operation that mirrored the austere times. But that promise quickly evaporated.
The mayor’s campaign, which leased a 35,000-square-foot headquarters in Midtown Manhattan and paid a disc jockey $300 to perform as volunteers called voters, was widely expected to crush his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., the city’s chief financial officer.
Mr. Thompson, who participated in the campaign finance system, was outspent by 14 to 1, and he struggled to attract experienced staff members and raise money.
His press releases misspelled his own name; his aides groused about their jobs on Facebook; and his media team was so short on cash that it resorted to running 15-second blink-and-you-miss-it TV commercials.
But Mr. Bloomberg’s unpopular drive to overturn the city’s term limits law, his lavish campaign and a sputtering economy soured thousands of New Yorkers on him, even though most admired his record in office.
On Election Day, their frustration erupted into public view: Mr. Bloomberg won by fewer than 5 percentage points, at a cost of about $20 million for each point.
Turnout was unusually low — 585,000 New Yorkers cast votes for him, compared with 753,089 in 2005 and 744,757 in 2001, records show.
“He didn’t seem to get very much for his money,” Mr. Russianoff said.
Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the mayor’s campaign, said that a harsh political environment helped oust incumbents in Westchester County and New Jersey.
“The reason this anti-incumbent wave stopped at the Hudson’s edge,” Mr. Wolfson said, “is because the mayor ran an effective campaign based on eight years of success.
--nytimes
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
NY Gov. asks lawmakers to let him cut deficit
By MICHAEL GORMLEY (AP) 11-24-2009
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Gov. David Paterson wants the Legislature to grant him emergency, one-time power to close a $3.2 billion deficit in the face of inaction by lawmakers.
In an Internet address Tuesday, he asked lawmakers to give him the power to make spending cuts and take other actions to provide enough cash for the state to pay its December bills.
It's unclear whether the special power would be granted by lawmakers who have so far balked at Paterson's proposed cuts. There was no immediate comment from the Senate and Assembly majorities
State Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat, says he won't vote for Paterson's cuts or his proposed bill. Diaz says Paterson is trying to act like a "macho man" for New York voters.
The state has faced a $3.2 billion deficit for months
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Gov. David Paterson wants the Legislature to grant him emergency, one-time power to close a $3.2 billion deficit in the face of inaction by lawmakers.
In an Internet address Tuesday, he asked lawmakers to give him the power to make spending cuts and take other actions to provide enough cash for the state to pay its December bills.
It's unclear whether the special power would be granted by lawmakers who have so far balked at Paterson's proposed cuts. There was no immediate comment from the Senate and Assembly majorities
State Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Bronx Democrat, says he won't vote for Paterson's cuts or his proposed bill. Diaz says Paterson is trying to act like a "macho man" for New York voters.
The state has faced a $3.2 billion deficit for months
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Sunday, November 22, 2009
NYC mayor, government try different ways to trim workers
Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:10pm EST
By Joan Gralla
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City and the state both want to cut expenses by trimming public employees but so far they are using different strategies.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is encouraging agencies to prune workers by giving them credit for saving money on health care and pension benefits, although those costs come out of the city's overall spending plan, Doug Turetsky, a spokesman for the Independent Budget Office, said by telephone on Friday.
In contrast, Governor David Paterson is trying to entice workers to quit in exchange for $20,000 severance payments.
Both the city and state must close multibillion dollar deficits over the next few years as they face fallout from problems on Wall Street.
Paterson, a Democrat, on Thursday extended the state's severance program until January 20 because agencies had only let 1,089 people opt in by the time it ended on November 11.
About 137,000 workers are eligible for the buyouts, but agencies have a compelling reason to find other ways to cut the $500 million the governor has demanded.
"Positions that are targeted for severances may not be refilled for at least five years in order to ensure that savings are achieved," a budget spokesman said by email.
Paterson on Friday warned the state might have to lay off workers due to a December cash crunch.
A spokesman for Bloomberg, who previously tried to push agencies to prune workers by offering incentives, was not available to comment on one of his new ways of slicing $1.75 billion over two years.
As with any big employer, health and pension costs make up a large portion of city workers' compensation.
When Bloomberg won his first term in 2001, the city had about 316,000 full- and part-time workers, said Turetsky, whose agency is a fiscal monitor. The mayor had trimmed the city payroll but it bounced back up to almost 318,000 positions as of March 2009, he said.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Joan Gralla
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City and the state both want to cut expenses by trimming public employees but so far they are using different strategies.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is encouraging agencies to prune workers by giving them credit for saving money on health care and pension benefits, although those costs come out of the city's overall spending plan, Doug Turetsky, a spokesman for the Independent Budget Office, said by telephone on Friday.
In contrast, Governor David Paterson is trying to entice workers to quit in exchange for $20,000 severance payments.
Both the city and state must close multibillion dollar deficits over the next few years as they face fallout from problems on Wall Street.
Paterson, a Democrat, on Thursday extended the state's severance program until January 20 because agencies had only let 1,089 people opt in by the time it ended on November 11.
About 137,000 workers are eligible for the buyouts, but agencies have a compelling reason to find other ways to cut the $500 million the governor has demanded.
"Positions that are targeted for severances may not be refilled for at least five years in order to ensure that savings are achieved," a budget spokesman said by email.
Paterson on Friday warned the state might have to lay off workers due to a December cash crunch.
A spokesman for Bloomberg, who previously tried to push agencies to prune workers by offering incentives, was not available to comment on one of his new ways of slicing $1.75 billion over two years.
As with any big employer, health and pension costs make up a large portion of city workers' compensation.
When Bloomberg won his first term in 2001, the city had about 316,000 full- and part-time workers, said Turetsky, whose agency is a fiscal monitor. The mayor had trimmed the city payroll but it bounced back up to almost 318,000 positions as of March 2009, he said.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
'Critical moment' for Afghanistan
Afghanistan is at a "critical moment" as Hamid Karzai prepares to be sworn in for a second term, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.
Speaking in Kabul, Mrs Clinton said there was a "window of opportunity" for President Karzai to demonstrate he was going to improve Afghans' lives.
Mr Karzai was declared the winner after an election tainted by allegations of widespread fraud.
He has come under growing pressure from Western officials to tackle corruption.
Mrs Clinton arrived in Kabul amid heavy security ahead of Thursday's inauguration ceremony.
Western officials are hoping that Mr Karzai will use his inauguration speech to make commitments to reform.
"We stand at a critical moment on the eve of the inauguration of President Karzai's second term," Mrs Clinton told staff at the US embassy.
Western leaders are backing the Afghan leader. They know they have little choice - and need to work closely with the Afghan government otherwise the situation will only get worse.
But with a faltering mission in Afghanistan - and their troops dying in the field - those leaders are getting tough. They want President Karzai to tackle rampant corruption within his government - something he has promised to do.
And all of this comes as President Obama deliberates on whether to send more troops to the country where the security situation is worsening.
There are concerns within his administration that more troops may make little difference unless the Afghan government increases its authority across the country.
Corruption a political obstacle
"There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a compact with the people of Afghanistan to demonstrate clearly that they're going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people," she said.
"We want to be a strong partner with the government and the people of Afghanistan - and I always say both. Because it's not either or, it has to be both."
The BBC's Kim Ghattas reports from Kabul that for Washington Mrs Clinton's presence there is a qualified endorsement of Mr Karzai.
Both US President Barack Obama and Mrs Clinton have made very public statements about the need to fight corruption, and Mrs Clinton has also warned civilian aid will not continue to flow to Afghanistan unless the issue is addressed.
She was expected to make those points when she had dinner with Mr Karzai on Wednesday evening, our correspondent says.
The Obama administration is currently debating sending more troops to Afghanistan, with Mr Obama saying he is "very close" to a decision.
Mr Karzai was declared president after a second round run-off was called off when his sole remaining challenger pulled out, saying the vote could not be free and fair.
Widespread fraud in the 20 August first round led to Mr Karzai being stripped of the outright win he appeared to have secured.
Meanwhile, a survey from British aid agency Oxfam has said poverty and unemployment are overwhelmingly seen as the main reasons behind conflict in Afghanistan.
Government weakness and corruption were the next most commonly cited reasons, ahead of Taliban violence. -BBC NEWS
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Speaking in Kabul, Mrs Clinton said there was a "window of opportunity" for President Karzai to demonstrate he was going to improve Afghans' lives.
Mr Karzai was declared the winner after an election tainted by allegations of widespread fraud.
He has come under growing pressure from Western officials to tackle corruption.
Mrs Clinton arrived in Kabul amid heavy security ahead of Thursday's inauguration ceremony.
Western officials are hoping that Mr Karzai will use his inauguration speech to make commitments to reform.
"We stand at a critical moment on the eve of the inauguration of President Karzai's second term," Mrs Clinton told staff at the US embassy.
Western leaders are backing the Afghan leader. They know they have little choice - and need to work closely with the Afghan government otherwise the situation will only get worse.
But with a faltering mission in Afghanistan - and their troops dying in the field - those leaders are getting tough. They want President Karzai to tackle rampant corruption within his government - something he has promised to do.
And all of this comes as President Obama deliberates on whether to send more troops to the country where the security situation is worsening.
There are concerns within his administration that more troops may make little difference unless the Afghan government increases its authority across the country.
Corruption a political obstacle
"There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a compact with the people of Afghanistan to demonstrate clearly that they're going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people," she said.
"We want to be a strong partner with the government and the people of Afghanistan - and I always say both. Because it's not either or, it has to be both."
The BBC's Kim Ghattas reports from Kabul that for Washington Mrs Clinton's presence there is a qualified endorsement of Mr Karzai.
Both US President Barack Obama and Mrs Clinton have made very public statements about the need to fight corruption, and Mrs Clinton has also warned civilian aid will not continue to flow to Afghanistan unless the issue is addressed.
She was expected to make those points when she had dinner with Mr Karzai on Wednesday evening, our correspondent says.
The Obama administration is currently debating sending more troops to Afghanistan, with Mr Obama saying he is "very close" to a decision.
Mr Karzai was declared president after a second round run-off was called off when his sole remaining challenger pulled out, saying the vote could not be free and fair.
Widespread fraud in the 20 August first round led to Mr Karzai being stripped of the outright win he appeared to have secured.
Meanwhile, a survey from British aid agency Oxfam has said poverty and unemployment are overwhelmingly seen as the main reasons behind conflict in Afghanistan.
Government weakness and corruption were the next most commonly cited reasons, ahead of Taliban violence. -BBC NEWS
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Obama: Gunman in Fort Hood rampage to pay for crimes
Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:24pm EST
By Ross Colvin
FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - President Barack Obama vowed on Tuesday to make sure the gunman who killed 13 people in a rampage at a U.S. Army base in Texas pays for his crimes.
Leading a memorial service for victims of an attack blamed on a Muslim Army psychiatrist, Obama reminded Americans they were enduring "trying times" while fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but said there was no justification for what he called an "incomprehensible" tragedy.
"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts. No just and loving God looks upon them with favor," Obama told a crowd of 15,000, many of them soldiers in camouflage, on a parade ground outside Fort Hood's headquarters.
"And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next."
The shootings marked the latest blow to a U.S. military under strain from its combat duties as Obama weighs sending thousands more troops to the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan even as he winds down America's role in Iraq.
The somber ceremony came amid questions about whether authorities missed warning signs about the alleged gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who spent years counseling severely wounded soldiers and was soon to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Relatives have said Hasan, who is of Palestinian descent, wanted to leave the Army to avoid being sent to Afghanistan and was harassed by fellow soldiers because of his religion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have stoked anti-U.S. sentiment among many Muslims worldwide.
Intelligence agencies learned Hasan had contacts with an Islamist sympathetic to al Qaeda and relayed that information to authorities before he allegedly went on the shooting spree, officials said on Monday.
No action was taken against Hasan by federal authorities, who determined the information gave no hint he was planning an attack or was taking orders from Anwar al-Awlaki, a fiery, anti-American cleric based in Yemen.
OBAMA PAYS TRIBUTE
Five days after the attack, the president and first lady Michelle Obama flew to Texas, where he honored the victims in public and met privately with their families and some of the 30 people wounded in the shootings.
"We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes," Obama said.
Obama invoked the September 11 attacks of 2001 as he tried to rally the spirits of the troops.
"These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis," he said.
"As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for." Continued...
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Ross Colvin
FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - President Barack Obama vowed on Tuesday to make sure the gunman who killed 13 people in a rampage at a U.S. Army base in Texas pays for his crimes.
Leading a memorial service for victims of an attack blamed on a Muslim Army psychiatrist, Obama reminded Americans they were enduring "trying times" while fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but said there was no justification for what he called an "incomprehensible" tragedy.
"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts. No just and loving God looks upon them with favor," Obama told a crowd of 15,000, many of them soldiers in camouflage, on a parade ground outside Fort Hood's headquarters.
"And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next."
The shootings marked the latest blow to a U.S. military under strain from its combat duties as Obama weighs sending thousands more troops to the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan even as he winds down America's role in Iraq.
The somber ceremony came amid questions about whether authorities missed warning signs about the alleged gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who spent years counseling severely wounded soldiers and was soon to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Relatives have said Hasan, who is of Palestinian descent, wanted to leave the Army to avoid being sent to Afghanistan and was harassed by fellow soldiers because of his religion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have stoked anti-U.S. sentiment among many Muslims worldwide.
Intelligence agencies learned Hasan had contacts with an Islamist sympathetic to al Qaeda and relayed that information to authorities before he allegedly went on the shooting spree, officials said on Monday.
No action was taken against Hasan by federal authorities, who determined the information gave no hint he was planning an attack or was taking orders from Anwar al-Awlaki, a fiery, anti-American cleric based in Yemen.
OBAMA PAYS TRIBUTE
Five days after the attack, the president and first lady Michelle Obama flew to Texas, where he honored the victims in public and met privately with their families and some of the 30 people wounded in the shootings.
"We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes," Obama said.
Obama invoked the September 11 attacks of 2001 as he tried to rally the spirits of the troops.
"These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis," he said.
"As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for." Continued...
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Saturday, November 07, 2009
House Passes Sweeping Healthcare Overhaul
November 8, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives approved a sweeping healthcare reform bill on Saturday, backing the biggest health policy changes in four decades and handing President Barack Obama a crucial victory.
On a narrow 220-215 vote, including the support of one Republican, the House endorsed a bill that would expand coverage to nearly all Americans and bar insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
Most Republicans criticized its $1 trillion price tag, new taxes on the wealthy and what they said was excessive government interference in the private health sector.
Democrats cheered and hugged when the 218th vote was recorded, and again when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pounded the gavel and announced the results.
The battle over Obama's top domestic priority now moves to the Senate, where work on its own version has stalled for weeks as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid searches for an approach that can win the 60 votes he needs.
Any differences between the Senate and House bills ultimately will have to be reconciled, and a final bill passed again by both before going to Obama for his signature.
"Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation," Obama said in a statement after the vote.
"I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year," he said.
The overhaul would spark the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system, which accounts for one sixth of the U.S. economy, since the creation of the Medicare government health program for the elderly in 1965.
ABORTION DEAL
The vote followed days of heavy lobbying of undecided Democrats by Obama, his top aides and House leaders. The narrow victory was clinched early on Saturday by a deal designed to mollify about 40 Democratic opponents of abortion rights.
Democrats had a cushion of 40 of their 258 House members they could lose and still pass the bill. In the end, 39 Democrats sided with Republicans against it.
The lone Republican to vote in favor of it was first-term Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana. "It was a bipartisan vote," Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said to laughter among fellow Democrats afterward.
The landmark vote was a huge step for Obama, who has staked much of his political capital on the healthcare battle. A loss in the House would have ended the fight, impaired the rest of his legislative agenda and left Democrats vulnerable to big losses in next year's congressional elections.
Obama traveled to Capitol Hill on Saturday morning to meet with House Democrats and emphasize the vital need for the healthcare reform bill.
Republicans and Democrats battled in sometimes testy debate through the day and into the night on Saturday over the bill, which would require individuals to have insurance and all but the smallest employers to offer health coverage to workers.
It would set up exchanges where people could choose to purchase private plans or a government-run insurance option bitterly opposed by the insurance industry, and it would offer subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance.
Congressional budget analysts say the bill would extend coverage to 36 million uninsured people living in the United States, covering about 96 percent of the population, and would reduce the budget deficit by about $100 billion over 10 years.
"We can't afford this bill," said Republican Representative Roy Blunt. "It's a 2,000-page road map to a government takeover of healthcare."
REPUBLICAN PLAN REJECTED
Democrats rejected on a 258-176 vote the much smaller Republican healthcare plan, which focused on cost controls and curbing medical malpractice lawsuits but did not include many of the insurance reforms of the Democratic plan.
The House also approved on a 240-194 vote an amendment that would impose tighter restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortions.
House Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote on the amendment to mollify about 40 moderate House Democrats who threatened to oppose the overhaul without changes to ensure federal subsidies in the bill for insurance purchases were not used on abortion.
The move enraged Democratic abortions rights supporters, but they largely voted in favor of the bill in hopes they can remove the language later in the legislative process.
(Editing by Arshad Mohammed and Todd Eastham)
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives approved a sweeping healthcare reform bill on Saturday, backing the biggest health policy changes in four decades and handing President Barack Obama a crucial victory.
On a narrow 220-215 vote, including the support of one Republican, the House endorsed a bill that would expand coverage to nearly all Americans and bar insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
Most Republicans criticized its $1 trillion price tag, new taxes on the wealthy and what they said was excessive government interference in the private health sector.
Democrats cheered and hugged when the 218th vote was recorded, and again when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pounded the gavel and announced the results.
The battle over Obama's top domestic priority now moves to the Senate, where work on its own version has stalled for weeks as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid searches for an approach that can win the 60 votes he needs.
Any differences between the Senate and House bills ultimately will have to be reconciled, and a final bill passed again by both before going to Obama for his signature.
"Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation," Obama said in a statement after the vote.
"I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year," he said.
The overhaul would spark the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system, which accounts for one sixth of the U.S. economy, since the creation of the Medicare government health program for the elderly in 1965.
ABORTION DEAL
The vote followed days of heavy lobbying of undecided Democrats by Obama, his top aides and House leaders. The narrow victory was clinched early on Saturday by a deal designed to mollify about 40 Democratic opponents of abortion rights.
Democrats had a cushion of 40 of their 258 House members they could lose and still pass the bill. In the end, 39 Democrats sided with Republicans against it.
The lone Republican to vote in favor of it was first-term Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana. "It was a bipartisan vote," Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said to laughter among fellow Democrats afterward.
The landmark vote was a huge step for Obama, who has staked much of his political capital on the healthcare battle. A loss in the House would have ended the fight, impaired the rest of his legislative agenda and left Democrats vulnerable to big losses in next year's congressional elections.
Obama traveled to Capitol Hill on Saturday morning to meet with House Democrats and emphasize the vital need for the healthcare reform bill.
Republicans and Democrats battled in sometimes testy debate through the day and into the night on Saturday over the bill, which would require individuals to have insurance and all but the smallest employers to offer health coverage to workers.
It would set up exchanges where people could choose to purchase private plans or a government-run insurance option bitterly opposed by the insurance industry, and it would offer subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance.
Congressional budget analysts say the bill would extend coverage to 36 million uninsured people living in the United States, covering about 96 percent of the population, and would reduce the budget deficit by about $100 billion over 10 years.
"We can't afford this bill," said Republican Representative Roy Blunt. "It's a 2,000-page road map to a government takeover of healthcare."
REPUBLICAN PLAN REJECTED
Democrats rejected on a 258-176 vote the much smaller Republican healthcare plan, which focused on cost controls and curbing medical malpractice lawsuits but did not include many of the insurance reforms of the Democratic plan.
The House also approved on a 240-194 vote an amendment that would impose tighter restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortions.
House Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote on the amendment to mollify about 40 moderate House Democrats who threatened to oppose the overhaul without changes to ensure federal subsidies in the bill for insurance purchases were not used on abortion.
The move enraged Democratic abortions rights supporters, but they largely voted in favor of the bill in hopes they can remove the language later in the legislative process.
(Editing by Arshad Mohammed and Todd Eastham)
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Kerik pleads guilty to giving false info to Bush officials
November 5, 2009 12:43 p.m. EST
White Plains, New York (CNN) -- Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik has pleaded guilty to giving false information to Bush administration officials who vetted his unsuccessful 2004 nomination to be homeland security secretary.
Kerik, 54, also indicated that he would admit to tax violations as part of a plea agreement in exchange for a recommended sentence of less than three years in prison.
Kerik had been scheduled to go to trial next week on a variety of corruption charges, including allegations that he received and concealed benefits of about $255,000 in renovations to his Riverdale, New York, apartment from a company seeking to do business with the city of New York.
In December 2008, prosecutors charged him with making several false statements to White House officials and other federal officials when he applied for positions in the Bush administration, including his nomination to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
In 2006, he pleaded guilty to accepting tens of thousands of dollars in gifts while he worked as city corrections commissioner, but under his plea agreement he paid $221,000 in fines and avoided jail time.
His admission dogged the 2008 presidential campaign of his longtime patron, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who admitted his endorsement of Kerik had been "a mistake."
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
White Plains, New York (CNN) -- Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik has pleaded guilty to giving false information to Bush administration officials who vetted his unsuccessful 2004 nomination to be homeland security secretary.
Kerik, 54, also indicated that he would admit to tax violations as part of a plea agreement in exchange for a recommended sentence of less than three years in prison.
Kerik had been scheduled to go to trial next week on a variety of corruption charges, including allegations that he received and concealed benefits of about $255,000 in renovations to his Riverdale, New York, apartment from a company seeking to do business with the city of New York.
In December 2008, prosecutors charged him with making several false statements to White House officials and other federal officials when he applied for positions in the Bush administration, including his nomination to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
In 2006, he pleaded guilty to accepting tens of thousands of dollars in gifts while he worked as city corrections commissioner, but under his plea agreement he paid $221,000 in fines and avoided jail time.
His admission dogged the 2008 presidential campaign of his longtime patron, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who admitted his endorsement of Kerik had been "a mistake."
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Bloomberg elected to a third term
By CLEMENTE LISI
Posted: 9:43 PM, November 3, 2009
Call him Mike "Three Times" Bloomberg.
Mayor Bloomberg, who engineered a change in the city's term limits law so he could run again, won a squeaker last night when he was narrowly re-elected to a third term as he defeated while vastly outspending Comptroller Bill Thompson.
With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Bloomberg had a 51 to 46 percent edge -- a much smaller gap than the double-digit win polls had projected on the eve of the election.
Before Election Day, various polls had Bloomberg winning by as little as 12 points to as many as 16.
With his victory, Bloomberg ensures himself a place in New York political lore by becoming the first mayor to win a third term since Ed Koch in 1985.
The victory also marks the fifth consecutive mayoral election where a Democrat has not won office after Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, won two straight terms, and Bloomberg matched that feat four years ago.
The City Council rolled back term limits last year, which allowed Bloomberg to run again.
The 67-year-old billionaire mayor, an independent who ran on the Republican and Independence lines, blanketed the city and airwaves with ads, spending more than $100 million of his own money to bankroll his campaign.
The amount represents the most expensive self-financed campaign in American history. Bloomberg spent $85 million to win re-election against Fernando Ferrer in 2005.
Bloomberg is described by Forbes magazine as the richest man in New York with a $16 billion fortune.
"This is the hardest and best run campaign I've ever seen," said Koch, who endorsed Bloomberg.
Eight years after he came out of nowhere following the Sept. 11 attacks to defeat Mark Green, Bloomberg won after he repeatedly touted his record that features the lowest crime levels in decades and the highest school test scores in a generation.
"He is building on the record of Rudy Giuliani," said Ed Cox, chairman of the state Republican Party.
New Yorkers who voted against Bloomberg overwhelmingly mentioned his changed position on term limits and exorbitant spending.
"I didn't like the idea that King Mike thinks he can buy anything he wants, including my vote," said Democrat Kevin Anterline, 56, who voted for Thompson.
Marjorie Shea, a retired high school teacher, said the spending was "overkill" -- but voted for Bloomberg anyway, saying his wealth and businessman's mind makes him an independent thinker.
"The team he has in place is doing very well. And he's not beholden to anyone," said Shea, a Democrat who voted on Manhattan's Upper West side.
Helen Newman, 32, voted for Green Party candidate Billy Talen, but said she wasn't bothered by the mayor's deep pockets.
"I didn't really see anyone show up who had a chance against him," said Newman. "But then I guess no one showed up who had a chance against him because he has so much money." nypost.com/
Posted: 9:43 PM, November 3, 2009
Call him Mike "Three Times" Bloomberg.
Mayor Bloomberg, who engineered a change in the city's term limits law so he could run again, won a squeaker last night when he was narrowly re-elected to a third term as he defeated while vastly outspending Comptroller Bill Thompson.
With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Bloomberg had a 51 to 46 percent edge -- a much smaller gap than the double-digit win polls had projected on the eve of the election.
Before Election Day, various polls had Bloomberg winning by as little as 12 points to as many as 16.
With his victory, Bloomberg ensures himself a place in New York political lore by becoming the first mayor to win a third term since Ed Koch in 1985.
The victory also marks the fifth consecutive mayoral election where a Democrat has not won office after Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, won two straight terms, and Bloomberg matched that feat four years ago.
The City Council rolled back term limits last year, which allowed Bloomberg to run again.
The 67-year-old billionaire mayor, an independent who ran on the Republican and Independence lines, blanketed the city and airwaves with ads, spending more than $100 million of his own money to bankroll his campaign.
The amount represents the most expensive self-financed campaign in American history. Bloomberg spent $85 million to win re-election against Fernando Ferrer in 2005.
Bloomberg is described by Forbes magazine as the richest man in New York with a $16 billion fortune.
"This is the hardest and best run campaign I've ever seen," said Koch, who endorsed Bloomberg.
Eight years after he came out of nowhere following the Sept. 11 attacks to defeat Mark Green, Bloomberg won after he repeatedly touted his record that features the lowest crime levels in decades and the highest school test scores in a generation.
"He is building on the record of Rudy Giuliani," said Ed Cox, chairman of the state Republican Party.
New Yorkers who voted against Bloomberg overwhelmingly mentioned his changed position on term limits and exorbitant spending.
"I didn't like the idea that King Mike thinks he can buy anything he wants, including my vote," said Democrat Kevin Anterline, 56, who voted for Thompson.
Marjorie Shea, a retired high school teacher, said the spending was "overkill" -- but voted for Bloomberg anyway, saying his wealth and businessman's mind makes him an independent thinker.
"The team he has in place is doing very well. And he's not beholden to anyone," said Shea, a Democrat who voted on Manhattan's Upper West side.
Helen Newman, 32, voted for Green Party candidate Billy Talen, but said she wasn't bothered by the mayor's deep pockets.
"I didn't really see anyone show up who had a chance against him," said Newman. "But then I guess no one showed up who had a chance against him because he has so much money." nypost.com/
Saturday, October 31, 2009
2009 General Election
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3 POLLS OPEN FROM 6 A.M. TO 9 P.M.
EVERY FOUR YEARS IN NYC there are elections for city offices. This Voter Guide covers the races for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and City Council. It provides you with profiles of the candidates running for these offices so you can compare them and make an informed decision when you vote. Other offices not covered by this Voter Guide, such as district attorney and judge, may also be on the ballot on November 3rd. Check the Board of Elections’ website to find out about all the offices that will appear on the ballot. For more information about judicial races read the online judicial voter guide published by the Judicial Campaign Ethics Center of the New York State Unified Court System.
You can find out more about candidates for mayor, public advocate, and comptroller by watching them debate. You can also watch video statements taped by the candidates for all five offices in the city’s Video Voter Guide, which will begin airing on October 26th. You can launch each candidate's video from their profile in this Guide starting October 26 as well.
--or visit www.nyccfb.info/voterguide
-davidsamuels@gmail.com
EVERY FOUR YEARS IN NYC there are elections for city offices. This Voter Guide covers the races for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and City Council. It provides you with profiles of the candidates running for these offices so you can compare them and make an informed decision when you vote. Other offices not covered by this Voter Guide, such as district attorney and judge, may also be on the ballot on November 3rd. Check the Board of Elections’ website to find out about all the offices that will appear on the ballot. For more information about judicial races read the online judicial voter guide published by the Judicial Campaign Ethics Center of the New York State Unified Court System.
You can find out more about candidates for mayor, public advocate, and comptroller by watching them debate. You can also watch video statements taped by the candidates for all five offices in the city’s Video Voter Guide, which will begin airing on October 26th. You can launch each candidate's video from their profile in this Guide starting October 26 as well.
--or visit www.nyccfb.info/voterguide
-davidsamuels@gmail.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Obama Girls Get Swine Flu Shots
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
October 27, 2009, 1:43 pm
The Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha, have gotten their swine flu shots.
The White House has been flooded with questions about whether the First Family has been vaccinated against H1N1, the swine flu virus. The administration posted the answer on its Web site Tuesday: President Obama and his wife Michelle will “wait until the needs of the priority groups” –- including young people under 24, pregnant women and people with underlying illnesses –- have been vaccinated. But Malia, 11, and Sasha, 8, fall within the priority groups, and they received their injections last week from the White House doctor, who applied for the vaccine through the District of Columbia Department of Health “using the same process as every other vaccination site in the District.’’
Dena Iverson, a spokeswoman for the District of Columbia Health Department, says that while there are lines at the District’s vaccination clinics, no one who is in a priority group has been turned away.
The vaccinations are bound to raise questions about whether the Obama girls were given special treatment. The administration is grappling with questions about why the vaccine is not more readily available. Officials, including the secretary of heath and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, say the holdup is with the manufacturers, whose production process has been slower than anticipated.
But at the same time, the White House may be trying to set a positive example amid concerns about the vaccine’s safety. Sharing the news that the president has allowed his own daughters to receive the shots could assuage the fears of ordinary Americans who are wondering whether or not to get vaccinated. nytimes.com
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
October 27, 2009, 1:43 pm
The Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha, have gotten their swine flu shots.
The White House has been flooded with questions about whether the First Family has been vaccinated against H1N1, the swine flu virus. The administration posted the answer on its Web site Tuesday: President Obama and his wife Michelle will “wait until the needs of the priority groups” –- including young people under 24, pregnant women and people with underlying illnesses –- have been vaccinated. But Malia, 11, and Sasha, 8, fall within the priority groups, and they received their injections last week from the White House doctor, who applied for the vaccine through the District of Columbia Department of Health “using the same process as every other vaccination site in the District.’’
Dena Iverson, a spokeswoman for the District of Columbia Health Department, says that while there are lines at the District’s vaccination clinics, no one who is in a priority group has been turned away.
The vaccinations are bound to raise questions about whether the Obama girls were given special treatment. The administration is grappling with questions about why the vaccine is not more readily available. Officials, including the secretary of heath and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, say the holdup is with the manufacturers, whose production process has been slower than anticipated.
But at the same time, the White House may be trying to set a positive example amid concerns about the vaccine’s safety. Sharing the news that the president has allowed his own daughters to receive the shots could assuage the fears of ordinary Americans who are wondering whether or not to get vaccinated. nytimes.com
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
U.S. to Order Steep Pay Cuts at Firms That Got Most Aid
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — Responding to the growing furor over the paychecks of executives at companies that received billions of dollars in federal bailouts, the Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.
Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Treasury Department's special appointee for executive compensation, spoke yesterday in Washington.
Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the cash payouts to their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. For many of the executives, the cash they would have received will be replaced by stock that they will be restricted from selling immediately.
And for all executives the total compensation, which includes bonuses, will drop, on average, by about 50 percent.
The companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.
At the financial products division of A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the large insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a stunning decline from previous years in which the unit produced many wealthy executives and traders.
In contrast to previous years, an official said, executives in the financial products division will receive no other compensation, like stocks or stock options.
And at all of the companies, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks — like country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars — will have to apply to the government for permission. The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must fulfill a commitment it made to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division.
The pay restrictions illustrate the humbling downfall of the once-proud giants, now wards of the state whose leaders’ compensation is being set by a Washington paymaster. They also show how Washington in the last year has become increasingly powerful in setting corporate policies as more companies turned to the government for money to survive.
The compensation schedules set by Kenneth R. Feinberg, the special master at Treasury handling compensation issues, comes as many other banks that received smaller but significant taxpayer assistance in the last year have been reporting huge year-end bonuses, setting off a new round of recrimination in Washington about the bailout of Wall Street.
Since his appointment last June by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Mr. Feinberg has spent months in negotiations with the companies as he seeks to balance compensation concerns against fears at the companies that any huge restrictions in pay could prompt an exodus of executives. Under a law adopted earlier this year, the Treasury Department was instructed to examine the salaries and bonuses for the five most-senior executives and their 20 most highly paid employees at companies that have received extraordinary assistance.
Mr. Feinberg has already achieved significant results at several companies. As a result of his discussions, Kenneth D. Lewis, the head of Bank of America who recently resigned, agreed to forgo his salary and bonus for 2009. (He will still receive a pension of $53.2 million, although Mr. Feinberg can issue an advisory opinion challenging it that would carry political weight.) And fearful of a political backlash over the pay of Andrew J. Hall, a successful energy trader who received nearly $100 million last year, Citigroup agreed two weeks ago to sell its Phibro unit that Mr. Hall heads to Occidental Petroleum.---N.Y.Times-
Published: October 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — Responding to the growing furor over the paychecks of executives at companies that received billions of dollars in federal bailouts, the Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.
Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Treasury Department's special appointee for executive compensation, spoke yesterday in Washington.
Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the cash payouts to their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. For many of the executives, the cash they would have received will be replaced by stock that they will be restricted from selling immediately.
And for all executives the total compensation, which includes bonuses, will drop, on average, by about 50 percent.
The companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.
At the financial products division of A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the large insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a stunning decline from previous years in which the unit produced many wealthy executives and traders.
In contrast to previous years, an official said, executives in the financial products division will receive no other compensation, like stocks or stock options.
And at all of the companies, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks — like country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars — will have to apply to the government for permission. The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must fulfill a commitment it made to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division.
The pay restrictions illustrate the humbling downfall of the once-proud giants, now wards of the state whose leaders’ compensation is being set by a Washington paymaster. They also show how Washington in the last year has become increasingly powerful in setting corporate policies as more companies turned to the government for money to survive.
The compensation schedules set by Kenneth R. Feinberg, the special master at Treasury handling compensation issues, comes as many other banks that received smaller but significant taxpayer assistance in the last year have been reporting huge year-end bonuses, setting off a new round of recrimination in Washington about the bailout of Wall Street.
Since his appointment last June by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Mr. Feinberg has spent months in negotiations with the companies as he seeks to balance compensation concerns against fears at the companies that any huge restrictions in pay could prompt an exodus of executives. Under a law adopted earlier this year, the Treasury Department was instructed to examine the salaries and bonuses for the five most-senior executives and their 20 most highly paid employees at companies that have received extraordinary assistance.
Mr. Feinberg has already achieved significant results at several companies. As a result of his discussions, Kenneth D. Lewis, the head of Bank of America who recently resigned, agreed to forgo his salary and bonus for 2009. (He will still receive a pension of $53.2 million, although Mr. Feinberg can issue an advisory opinion challenging it that would carry political weight.) And fearful of a political backlash over the pay of Andrew J. Hall, a successful energy trader who received nearly $100 million last year, Citigroup agreed two weeks ago to sell its Phibro unit that Mr. Hall heads to Occidental Petroleum.---N.Y.Times-
Thursday, October 15, 2009
6 construction companies accused of using race-based pay scale: whites at top, Latinos rock bottom
By Brian Kates
Updated Thursday, October 15th 2009, 2:05 PM
Six construction companies are accused in a new state lawsuit of paying their employees according to their race - with whites at the top and Latinos at the bottom.
The suit filed by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo on Thursday says the companies cheated lower-paid minority workers out of $4 million in wages and overtime.
All six firms are controlled by Michael Mahoney, a contractor exposed by the Daily News last year after workers said his companies provided them with black market federal safety certificates.
Mahoney's companies paid white workers an average hourly rate of $25, while paying African-Americans $18 and Latinos and Brazilians only $15 an hour for the same work, the suit charges.
Since 2002, the companies short-changed dozens of employes at at least 10 construction sites, Cuomo charged.
Some workers were cheated of as much as $600 a month, according to Cuomo.
The companies named in the suit include: EMC of New York Inc.; FSC Construction LLC FSC General Construction LLC; BMC Construction Contractors Corp.; Eastlake Industries, Inc., and Rigid Concrete Construction.
They all worked on New York City jobs, Cuomo said.
"To discriminate against workers based on race or ethnicity and to deny them wages...is a gross violation of the law and a disgraceful abuse of power," Cuomo said.
He said the lawsuit "should send a message to in New York - you play by the rules or face legal consequences."
Mahoney could not be reached immediately for comment. Last year, workers at several Mahoney sites told the News that they had been provided with false Occupational Safety and Health Administration certificates indicating that they had received safety training when they had not.
The workers said they received the cards, required in the city for high-rise construction, from supervisors on the job, including Mahoney's brother, Timmy Mahoney.
Both brothers denied any involvement in the issuing of black market OSHA cards.
At one point, Michael Mahoney tried to rip a camera from a News photogrpher covering the story.
One of the workers who said he was issued a bogus OSHA certificate, told the News that he and other Brazilian workers were bussed daily to Mahoney job sites from the Ironbound section of Newark and were paid less than non-minority workers.
Union investigators had been investigating wage irregularities in Manhoney's companies for several years.
Several of Mahoney's job sites have been picketed by members of the District Council of Carpenters, who erected a giant inflatible rat at some of them to protest the use of non-union labor. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/10/15/2009-10-15_6_constructions_companies_accused_of_paying.html#ixzz0U0Jj1ZX9
Updated Thursday, October 15th 2009, 2:05 PM
Six construction companies are accused in a new state lawsuit of paying their employees according to their race - with whites at the top and Latinos at the bottom.
The suit filed by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo on Thursday says the companies cheated lower-paid minority workers out of $4 million in wages and overtime.
All six firms are controlled by Michael Mahoney, a contractor exposed by the Daily News last year after workers said his companies provided them with black market federal safety certificates.
Mahoney's companies paid white workers an average hourly rate of $25, while paying African-Americans $18 and Latinos and Brazilians only $15 an hour for the same work, the suit charges.
Since 2002, the companies short-changed dozens of employes at at least 10 construction sites, Cuomo charged.
Some workers were cheated of as much as $600 a month, according to Cuomo.
The companies named in the suit include: EMC of New York Inc.; FSC Construction LLC FSC General Construction LLC; BMC Construction Contractors Corp.; Eastlake Industries, Inc., and Rigid Concrete Construction.
They all worked on New York City jobs, Cuomo said.
"To discriminate against workers based on race or ethnicity and to deny them wages...is a gross violation of the law and a disgraceful abuse of power," Cuomo said.
He said the lawsuit "should send a message to in New York - you play by the rules or face legal consequences."
Mahoney could not be reached immediately for comment. Last year, workers at several Mahoney sites told the News that they had been provided with false Occupational Safety and Health Administration certificates indicating that they had received safety training when they had not.
The workers said they received the cards, required in the city for high-rise construction, from supervisors on the job, including Mahoney's brother, Timmy Mahoney.
Both brothers denied any involvement in the issuing of black market OSHA cards.
At one point, Michael Mahoney tried to rip a camera from a News photogrpher covering the story.
One of the workers who said he was issued a bogus OSHA certificate, told the News that he and other Brazilian workers were bussed daily to Mahoney job sites from the Ironbound section of Newark and were paid less than non-minority workers.
Union investigators had been investigating wage irregularities in Manhoney's companies for several years.
Several of Mahoney's job sites have been picketed by members of the District Council of Carpenters, who erected a giant inflatible rat at some of them to protest the use of non-union labor. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/10/15/2009-10-15_6_constructions_companies_accused_of_paying.html#ixzz0U0Jj1ZX9
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Senate Panel Clears Health Bill With One G.O.P. Vote
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 13, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reshape the American health care system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the landmark bill.
The vote was 14 to 9, with all of the other Republicans opposed.
Democrats, including President Obama, had courted Ms. Snowe’s vote, hoping that she would break with the Republican Party leadership and provide at least a veneer of bipartisanship to the bill, which Mr. Obama has declared his top domestic priority. Ms. Snowe was a main author of the bill but she had never committed to voting for it.
But shortly after 1 p.m., she announced that she was on board, in a speech that silenced the packed committee room and riveted colleagues on both sides of the dais.
“Is this bill all that I would want?” Ms. Snowe asked. “Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”
--Related Story at---http://harlemvoiceblogs.blogspot.com
Published: October 13, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reshape the American health care system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the landmark bill.
The vote was 14 to 9, with all of the other Republicans opposed.
Democrats, including President Obama, had courted Ms. Snowe’s vote, hoping that she would break with the Republican Party leadership and provide at least a veneer of bipartisanship to the bill, which Mr. Obama has declared his top domestic priority. Ms. Snowe was a main author of the bill but she had never committed to voting for it.
But shortly after 1 p.m., she announced that she was on board, in a speech that silenced the packed committee room and riveted colleagues on both sides of the dais.
“Is this bill all that I would want?” Ms. Snowe asked. “Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”
--Related Story at---http://harlemvoiceblogs.blogspot.com
Friday, October 02, 2009
Diabetes and the Flu: 6 Things You Should Know
By January W. Payne
Posted October 2, 2009
If you have diabetes, it's wise to take steps to protect yourself from both regular flu and H1N1, or swine flu, experts say, since you're more at risk for complications of the flu than people in other groups. Simply being sick at all, with a cold or the flu, can increase your blood glucose, and it may keep you from eating regularly, which also affects your blood sugar, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
If you're diagnosed with flu, it's very important to check blood sugar readings several times a day, says Debby Johnson, a diabetes educator and nutrition coach with Fit4D, an online personalized fitness and nutritional coaching service for people with diabetes. "Feeling tired from the flu can mask symptoms of low blood glucose and high blood glucose," she warns.
Diabetics' immune systems are more susceptible to severe cases of the flu, so you may get very sick or even have to be hospitalized, reports the CDC. The agency recommends that all diabetics get a seasonal flu shot between October and mid-November. As for the H1N1 vaccine, expected to be available soon, everyone between the ages of 6 months and 24 years—regardless of pre-existing medical conditions—should get the shot. People ages 25 through 64 who have diabetes or other medical conditions tied to a higher risk of complications from the flu also should be vaccinated, health officials say.
Since you can still get sick even if you do get vaccinated—albeit usually with a milder form of the illness—here are five other things diabetics should keep in mind if they get the seasonal flu or H1N1:
Check the label before taking any over-the-counter medication. Some OTC medicines, particularly cough syrups, contain sugar, which can affect blood glucose level
. "It's okay that a diabetic takes OTC medications, but whether they're sick or not, they should always be aware of the sugar content," says Marc Wolf, a pharmacist and CEO of Diabetic Care Services Inc., a Cleveland-based company that sells diabetes testing supplies. "The pharmacist can recommend medicine that has low sugar content or none at all."
Stay hydrated and eat regularly. When you're sick, it's important to drink extra calorie-free liquids and to try to eat regularly, according to the CDC. If your stomach is upset, try to consume soft foods or drinks that contain similar carbohydrate levels as you'd normally take in. And if you're not able to do this, talk to your doctor about adjusting your diabetes medication. If you have the flu and can't keep food down, that can affect the amount of medication that you should take; too much or too little can send blood sugar levels spiraling too high or too low, Johnson says.
Know when it's time to call the doctor. Diabetics who are too sick to eat or keep food down for more than six hours should call the doctor or go to the emergency room, the CDC advises. The same goes for those who are having trouble breathing or who have severe diarrhea, lose 5 pounds or more, have a temperature over 101 degrees, or have a blood glucose level lower than 60 mg/dL or over 300 mg/dL. And any signs of confusion or excessive sleepiness should prompt an immediate visit to a doctor's office or emergency room, Wolf says.
Weigh yourself daily. Weight loss without effort can be a sign of blood sugar that is too high.
Don't forget about the routine recommendations to reduce the spread of illness. Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you sneeze or cough and throw the tissue away. Wash your hands with soap and water; keep hand sanitizer close (and use it); and try not to touch your nose, eyes, or mouth to reduce the spread of germs. Finally, if you do get sick, stay home to avoid spreading germs to others.
--From U.S.News&world report-Health
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com/
Posted October 2, 2009
If you have diabetes, it's wise to take steps to protect yourself from both regular flu and H1N1, or swine flu, experts say, since you're more at risk for complications of the flu than people in other groups. Simply being sick at all, with a cold or the flu, can increase your blood glucose, and it may keep you from eating regularly, which also affects your blood sugar, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
If you're diagnosed with flu, it's very important to check blood sugar readings several times a day, says Debby Johnson, a diabetes educator and nutrition coach with Fit4D, an online personalized fitness and nutritional coaching service for people with diabetes. "Feeling tired from the flu can mask symptoms of low blood glucose and high blood glucose," she warns.
Diabetics' immune systems are more susceptible to severe cases of the flu, so you may get very sick or even have to be hospitalized, reports the CDC. The agency recommends that all diabetics get a seasonal flu shot between October and mid-November. As for the H1N1 vaccine, expected to be available soon, everyone between the ages of 6 months and 24 years—regardless of pre-existing medical conditions—should get the shot. People ages 25 through 64 who have diabetes or other medical conditions tied to a higher risk of complications from the flu also should be vaccinated, health officials say.
Since you can still get sick even if you do get vaccinated—albeit usually with a milder form of the illness—here are five other things diabetics should keep in mind if they get the seasonal flu or H1N1:
Check the label before taking any over-the-counter medication. Some OTC medicines, particularly cough syrups, contain sugar, which can affect blood glucose level
. "It's okay that a diabetic takes OTC medications, but whether they're sick or not, they should always be aware of the sugar content," says Marc Wolf, a pharmacist and CEO of Diabetic Care Services Inc., a Cleveland-based company that sells diabetes testing supplies. "The pharmacist can recommend medicine that has low sugar content or none at all."
Stay hydrated and eat regularly. When you're sick, it's important to drink extra calorie-free liquids and to try to eat regularly, according to the CDC. If your stomach is upset, try to consume soft foods or drinks that contain similar carbohydrate levels as you'd normally take in. And if you're not able to do this, talk to your doctor about adjusting your diabetes medication. If you have the flu and can't keep food down, that can affect the amount of medication that you should take; too much or too little can send blood sugar levels spiraling too high or too low, Johnson says.
Know when it's time to call the doctor. Diabetics who are too sick to eat or keep food down for more than six hours should call the doctor or go to the emergency room, the CDC advises. The same goes for those who are having trouble breathing or who have severe diarrhea, lose 5 pounds or more, have a temperature over 101 degrees, or have a blood glucose level lower than 60 mg/dL or over 300 mg/dL. And any signs of confusion or excessive sleepiness should prompt an immediate visit to a doctor's office or emergency room, Wolf says.
Weigh yourself daily. Weight loss without effort can be a sign of blood sugar that is too high.
Don't forget about the routine recommendations to reduce the spread of illness. Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you sneeze or cough and throw the tissue away. Wash your hands with soap and water; keep hand sanitizer close (and use it); and try not to touch your nose, eyes, or mouth to reduce the spread of germs. Finally, if you do get sick, stay home to avoid spreading germs to others.
--From U.S.News&world report-Health
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com/
Monday, September 28, 2009
Secret Service Probing Obama Assassination Poll on Facebook
Monday, September 28, 2009
FOXnews.com
By Joshua Rhett Miller
The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a "poll" posted on Facebook that asked users the most unsocial, unspeakable question: Should President Obama be assassinated?
Edwin Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said the agency will take "appropriate investigative steps" in connection to the survey, which was posted on Saturday and was quickly removed when Facebook employees were alerted to its existence.
"We are continuing our investigation," Donovan told FOXNews.com, declining further comment.
The poll asked respondents: "Should Obama be killed?"
The possible answers were "no," "maybe," yes," and "yes if he cuts my health care."
Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said a "third-party application" enabled an individual user to create what he said was an "offensive poll."
"The application was immediately suspended while the inappropriate content could be removed by the developer and until such time as the developer institutes better procedures to monitor their user-generated content," Schnitt said in a statement to FOXNews.com.
Facebook is now cooperating with the Secret Service, Schnitt said.
Bob Beckel, a Democratic Party strategist and FOX News contributor, said the individual responsible for the poll should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"This is the kind of garbage that's generated from the extreme right against Obama, and it's going way over the line," Beckel told FOXNews.com. "It's got to be stopped. Find him, prosecute him and put him in jail."
Regardless of political persuasion, Beckel said such threats are "un-American" and simply not acceptable.
"If they don't like what Obama is doing, then maybe they ought to go out and vote for someone else," he said. "But relying on this kind of attack is un-American and unacceptable."
In November, prior to Obama's landslide election victory, officials from the Secret Service declined to comment on the number of threats he had received, but they said they saw more threats against him than any other candidate during the campaign.
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
FOXnews.com
By Joshua Rhett Miller
The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a "poll" posted on Facebook that asked users the most unsocial, unspeakable question: Should President Obama be assassinated?
Edwin Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said the agency will take "appropriate investigative steps" in connection to the survey, which was posted on Saturday and was quickly removed when Facebook employees were alerted to its existence.
"We are continuing our investigation," Donovan told FOXNews.com, declining further comment.
The poll asked respondents: "Should Obama be killed?"
The possible answers were "no," "maybe," yes," and "yes if he cuts my health care."
Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said a "third-party application" enabled an individual user to create what he said was an "offensive poll."
"The application was immediately suspended while the inappropriate content could be removed by the developer and until such time as the developer institutes better procedures to monitor their user-generated content," Schnitt said in a statement to FOXNews.com.
Facebook is now cooperating with the Secret Service, Schnitt said.
Bob Beckel, a Democratic Party strategist and FOX News contributor, said the individual responsible for the poll should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"This is the kind of garbage that's generated from the extreme right against Obama, and it's going way over the line," Beckel told FOXNews.com. "It's got to be stopped. Find him, prosecute him and put him in jail."
Regardless of political persuasion, Beckel said such threats are "un-American" and simply not acceptable.
"If they don't like what Obama is doing, then maybe they ought to go out and vote for someone else," he said. "But relying on this kind of attack is un-American and unacceptable."
In November, prior to Obama's landslide election victory, officials from the Secret Service declined to comment on the number of threats he had received, but they said they saw more threats against him than any other candidate during the campaign.
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Officials: N.Y. attack was set for Sept. 11
WIRE REPORTSPublished: September 26, 2009 -----Richmond -Times Dispatch
DENVER -- An Afghan immigrant wanted to carry out a New York City terror attack involving hydrogen peroxide bombs to coincide with the Sept. 11 anniversary before federal authorities foiled the plan, a U.S. prosecutor said yesterday.
Tim Neff told a federal judge in Denver that Najibullah Zazi "was in the throes of making a bomb and attempting to perfect his formulation."
"The evidence suggests a chilling, disturbing sequence of events showing the defendant was intent on making a bomb and being in New York on 9/11, for purposes of perhaps using such items," Neff said in arguing for Zazi's transfer to New York.
Ken Deal, chief deputy U.S. marshal in Denver, said Zazi was put on a U.S. government plane after U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer ordered Zazi transferred to New York City to face charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. He arrived late yesterday.
. . .
Alleged Ill., Texas plots: Two men were in custody yesterday after each tried to blow up what they thought were vehicles packed with explosives outside a Texas skyscraper and an Illinois courthouse, authorities said.
The two cases were unconnected to each other and to the New York-Denver investigation.
Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19, a Jordanian who lives in Texas, appeared in court in Dallas yesterday after federal officials said he parked what he thought was an explosive-laden truck in a parking garage under the 60-story Fountain Place office tower in Dallas.
Michael C. Finton, 29, who also went by the name Talib Islam, was arrested Wednesday in Springfield, Ill., after federal officials said he attempted to detonate what he believed to be explosives in a van outside a federal courthouse in the Illinois capital.
In both cases, decoy devices were provided to the men by FBI agents posing as al-Qaida operatives. Both are charged with trying to detonate a weapon of mass destruction and face up to life in prison if convicted.
DENVER -- An Afghan immigrant wanted to carry out a New York City terror attack involving hydrogen peroxide bombs to coincide with the Sept. 11 anniversary before federal authorities foiled the plan, a U.S. prosecutor said yesterday.
Tim Neff told a federal judge in Denver that Najibullah Zazi "was in the throes of making a bomb and attempting to perfect his formulation."
"The evidence suggests a chilling, disturbing sequence of events showing the defendant was intent on making a bomb and being in New York on 9/11, for purposes of perhaps using such items," Neff said in arguing for Zazi's transfer to New York.
Ken Deal, chief deputy U.S. marshal in Denver, said Zazi was put on a U.S. government plane after U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer ordered Zazi transferred to New York City to face charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. He arrived late yesterday.
. . .
Alleged Ill., Texas plots: Two men were in custody yesterday after each tried to blow up what they thought were vehicles packed with explosives outside a Texas skyscraper and an Illinois courthouse, authorities said.
The two cases were unconnected to each other and to the New York-Denver investigation.
Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19, a Jordanian who lives in Texas, appeared in court in Dallas yesterday after federal officials said he parked what he thought was an explosive-laden truck in a parking garage under the 60-story Fountain Place office tower in Dallas.
Michael C. Finton, 29, who also went by the name Talib Islam, was arrested Wednesday in Springfield, Ill., after federal officials said he attempted to detonate what he believed to be explosives in a van outside a federal courthouse in the Illinois capital.
In both cases, decoy devices were provided to the men by FBI agents posing as al-Qaida operatives. Both are charged with trying to detonate a weapon of mass destruction and face up to life in prison if convicted.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What is the ACORN controversy about?
Here are the basics about ACORN and about the videos that have put the organization in hot water.
By Michael B. Farrell Staff writer/ September 16, 2009 edition
San Francisco
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is once again at the center of controversy. This time the group is in hot water over videos that show employees telling two conservative activists masquerading as a pimp and prostitute how to trick federal tax authorities.
ACORN says the videos are part of a “multiyear political assault” on the organization, which conservatives say uses tax dollars to advance a liberal agenda. But the organization also says it is “deeply disturbed” by the videos and has launched its own review of employee procedures and training.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are using the videos as evidence for why the federal government should cut off all funding to the organization, which helps low- and moderate-income people gain access to mortgages.
On Monday, senators overwhelmingly voted to keep the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from issuing grants to ACORN. On Wednesday, Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama asked for a full-blown investigation of the group.
But how did an organization that largely concerns itself with matters of America’s poorest find itself, once again, in the sights of both lawmakers and talk-show hosts? Following are some basics about ACORN and the recent controversy.
What is ACORN?
According to the group’s website, ACORN is a collection of grass-roots organizations that serve as an advocate for the poor. It began in the 1970s and now has about 1,200 chapters. It is “committed to social and economic justice” and has worked to raise the minimum wage, end predatroy lending practices, and develop affordable housing.
But during the presidential campaign last year, a few ACORN employees working to register voters were charged with filing bogus applications. They were caught and fired. But when it was revealed that President Obama had connections with ACORN, the incident became highly politicized. Republican presidential candidate John McCain attempted to tie ACORN with Mr. Obama.
ACORN does receive federal tax dollars for some of its work. The Senate vote on the motion presented Monday by Sen. Mike Johanns (R) of Nebraska would prevent it from receiving any dollars from HUD. The group was in line to receive grants to counsel low-income homebuyers.
Senator Johanns, who also wants the US attorney general to investigate ACORN, says that the group has received $53 million in federal money since 1994.
In light of the most recent controversy, the Census Bureau has fired ACORN, which had been hired to help with the 2010 Census.
What do the videos show?
On Sept. 10, the website Biggovernment.com began posting videos of a couple who said they were operating a prostitution ring that involved underage girls from El Salvador. They went to ACORN offices in New York, Washington, California, and Maryland with essentially the same story: They wanted help hiding their illicit income from federal tax authorities.
In all the videos, ACORN employees offered their help, knowing full well what the couple’s intentions were.
Mike Flynn, editor of Biggovernment.com, said Wednesday that the site will be posting even more videos of ACORN.
Since the videos aired, ACORN has become the scorn of conservative talk-show hosts. Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News have said the tapes prove not only that the group is “corrupt,” but also that corruption extends to the Obama administration.
“Who does the president surround himself with? ACORN and [the Service Employees International Union]. Well, gee, there’s corruption there. We can’t take anything,” Mr. Beck said.
One Republican insider told Politico: “This is an organization that has attracted attention before…. Basically, ACORN gets federal money, and it advocates for the liberal, Democrat agenda. That’s wrong, and we need to stop it.”
What is ACORN doing in light of the controversy?
On Wednesday, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said the tapes were “indefensible actions of a handful of employees” and warranted an independent review of the group’s procedures.
She said this in a statement:
“We have all been deeply disturbed by what we’ve seen in some of these videos. I must say, on behalf of ACORN’s Board and our Advisory Council, that we will go to whatever lengths necessary to reestablish the public trust. For nearly forty years, ACORN has given voice to communities, and gotten results. Right now, our nearly 500,000 member are working their hearts out for quality, affordable healthcare for every American and to help stop the foreclosure crisis. We must get this process right, so the good work can go forward.”
Can ACORN survive this latest controversy?
John Fund, an op-ed writer for The Wall Street Journal, says that this time, ACORN “may be finally running off the rails.”
He noted that last week, “11 of its workers were accused by Florida prosecutors of falsifying information on 888 voter registration forms.” He continued, “Last month, Acorn’s former Las Vegas, Nev., field director, Christopher Edwards, agreed to testify against the group in a case in which Las Vegas election officials say 48% of the voter registration forms the group turned in were ‘clearly fraudulent.’ Acorn itself is charged with 13 counts of illegally using a quota system to compensate workers in an effort to boost the number of registrations. (Acorn has denied wrongdoing in all of these cases.)”
ACORN says it is besieged – again – because of a few bad apples within their offices.
Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman, told the Associated Press that Republicans were “playing politics” and trying to “stop ACORN’s good work fighting to stop the foreclosure crisis and to win quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.”
From the Christian science Monitor
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Michael B. Farrell Staff writer/ September 16, 2009 edition
San Francisco
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is once again at the center of controversy. This time the group is in hot water over videos that show employees telling two conservative activists masquerading as a pimp and prostitute how to trick federal tax authorities.
ACORN says the videos are part of a “multiyear political assault” on the organization, which conservatives say uses tax dollars to advance a liberal agenda. But the organization also says it is “deeply disturbed” by the videos and has launched its own review of employee procedures and training.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are using the videos as evidence for why the federal government should cut off all funding to the organization, which helps low- and moderate-income people gain access to mortgages.
On Monday, senators overwhelmingly voted to keep the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from issuing grants to ACORN. On Wednesday, Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama asked for a full-blown investigation of the group.
But how did an organization that largely concerns itself with matters of America’s poorest find itself, once again, in the sights of both lawmakers and talk-show hosts? Following are some basics about ACORN and the recent controversy.
What is ACORN?
According to the group’s website, ACORN is a collection of grass-roots organizations that serve as an advocate for the poor. It began in the 1970s and now has about 1,200 chapters. It is “committed to social and economic justice” and has worked to raise the minimum wage, end predatroy lending practices, and develop affordable housing.
But during the presidential campaign last year, a few ACORN employees working to register voters were charged with filing bogus applications. They were caught and fired. But when it was revealed that President Obama had connections with ACORN, the incident became highly politicized. Republican presidential candidate John McCain attempted to tie ACORN with Mr. Obama.
ACORN does receive federal tax dollars for some of its work. The Senate vote on the motion presented Monday by Sen. Mike Johanns (R) of Nebraska would prevent it from receiving any dollars from HUD. The group was in line to receive grants to counsel low-income homebuyers.
Senator Johanns, who also wants the US attorney general to investigate ACORN, says that the group has received $53 million in federal money since 1994.
In light of the most recent controversy, the Census Bureau has fired ACORN, which had been hired to help with the 2010 Census.
What do the videos show?
On Sept. 10, the website Biggovernment.com began posting videos of a couple who said they were operating a prostitution ring that involved underage girls from El Salvador. They went to ACORN offices in New York, Washington, California, and Maryland with essentially the same story: They wanted help hiding their illicit income from federal tax authorities.
In all the videos, ACORN employees offered their help, knowing full well what the couple’s intentions were.
Mike Flynn, editor of Biggovernment.com, said Wednesday that the site will be posting even more videos of ACORN.
Since the videos aired, ACORN has become the scorn of conservative talk-show hosts. Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News have said the tapes prove not only that the group is “corrupt,” but also that corruption extends to the Obama administration.
“Who does the president surround himself with? ACORN and [the Service Employees International Union]. Well, gee, there’s corruption there. We can’t take anything,” Mr. Beck said.
One Republican insider told Politico: “This is an organization that has attracted attention before…. Basically, ACORN gets federal money, and it advocates for the liberal, Democrat agenda. That’s wrong, and we need to stop it.”
What is ACORN doing in light of the controversy?
On Wednesday, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said the tapes were “indefensible actions of a handful of employees” and warranted an independent review of the group’s procedures.
She said this in a statement:
“We have all been deeply disturbed by what we’ve seen in some of these videos. I must say, on behalf of ACORN’s Board and our Advisory Council, that we will go to whatever lengths necessary to reestablish the public trust. For nearly forty years, ACORN has given voice to communities, and gotten results. Right now, our nearly 500,000 member are working their hearts out for quality, affordable healthcare for every American and to help stop the foreclosure crisis. We must get this process right, so the good work can go forward.”
Can ACORN survive this latest controversy?
John Fund, an op-ed writer for The Wall Street Journal, says that this time, ACORN “may be finally running off the rails.”
He noted that last week, “11 of its workers were accused by Florida prosecutors of falsifying information on 888 voter registration forms.” He continued, “Last month, Acorn’s former Las Vegas, Nev., field director, Christopher Edwards, agreed to testify against the group in a case in which Las Vegas election officials say 48% of the voter registration forms the group turned in were ‘clearly fraudulent.’ Acorn itself is charged with 13 counts of illegally using a quota system to compensate workers in an effort to boost the number of registrations. (Acorn has denied wrongdoing in all of these cases.)”
ACORN says it is besieged – again – because of a few bad apples within their offices.
Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman, told the Associated Press that Republicans were “playing politics” and trying to “stop ACORN’s good work fighting to stop the foreclosure crisis and to win quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.”
From the Christian science Monitor
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
RPT-Obama warns U.S. teens of perils of Facebook
Tue Sep 8, 2009 4:55pm EDT
WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned American teenagers on Tuesday of the dangers of putting too much personal information on Internet social networking sites, saying it could come back to haunt them in later life.
The presidential words of advice follow recent studies that suggest U.S. employers are increasingly turning to sites such as Facebook and News Corp's (NWSA.O) MySpace to conduct background checks on job applicants.
Taking part in a question-and-answer session with a group of 14- and 15-year-old school students, Obama was asked by one pupil for some advice on becoming U.S. president.
"Well, let me give you some very practical tips. First of all, I want everybody here to be careful about what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age, whatever you do, it will be pulled up again later somewhere in your life," Obama said.
"And when you're young, you make mistakes and you do some stupid stuff. And I've been hearing a lot about young people who -- you know, they're posting stuff on Facebook, and then suddenly they go apply for a job and somebody has done a search."
Obama referred several times to "mistakes" he had made when he was at school but offered no specifics. He has previously admitted to drug use when he was younger.
A survey in June by careerbuilder.com found that 45 percent of employers used social network sites to research job candidates and that Facebook, which says it has 250 million users worldwide, was their site of choice.
Some 35 percent of the employers surveyed said they had found content on the sites that had influenced them to reject a candidate. Examples included inappropriate photographs, information about the applicants' drinking or drug use, or bad mouthing of previous employers, co-workers or clients.
The Obama White House frequently uses Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites to bypass the media and communicate directly to Americans.
WASHINGTON, Sept 8 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned American teenagers on Tuesday of the dangers of putting too much personal information on Internet social networking sites, saying it could come back to haunt them in later life.
The presidential words of advice follow recent studies that suggest U.S. employers are increasingly turning to sites such as Facebook and News Corp's (NWSA.O) MySpace to conduct background checks on job applicants.
Taking part in a question-and-answer session with a group of 14- and 15-year-old school students, Obama was asked by one pupil for some advice on becoming U.S. president.
"Well, let me give you some very practical tips. First of all, I want everybody here to be careful about what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age, whatever you do, it will be pulled up again later somewhere in your life," Obama said.
"And when you're young, you make mistakes and you do some stupid stuff. And I've been hearing a lot about young people who -- you know, they're posting stuff on Facebook, and then suddenly they go apply for a job and somebody has done a search."
Obama referred several times to "mistakes" he had made when he was at school but offered no specifics. He has previously admitted to drug use when he was younger.
A survey in June by careerbuilder.com found that 45 percent of employers used social network sites to research job candidates and that Facebook, which says it has 250 million users worldwide, was their site of choice.
Some 35 percent of the employers surveyed said they had found content on the sites that had influenced them to reject a candidate. Examples included inappropriate photographs, information about the applicants' drinking or drug use, or bad mouthing of previous employers, co-workers or clients.
The Obama White House frequently uses Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites to bypass the media and communicate directly to Americans.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Stimulus Credited for Lifting Economy, But Worries About Unemployment Persist
By Michael A. Fletcher and Neil Irwin Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, September 4, 2009
Half a year after Congress enacted the largest economic stimulus plan in the nation's history, the measure is contributing to what increasingly looks like a budding recovery, analysts say, but significant concern remains about rising unemployment and the initiative's contribution to the federal budget deficit.
With the Obama administration under fire for what critics call unrestrained spending and polls showing the American public ambivalent about the impact of the stimulus plan, officials are pushing back, seeking to highlight the role played by their polices in fueling a recovery.
Vice President Biden, making what the White House billed as a major speech Thursday, touted the role of the $787 billion stimulus program in lifting the economy.
"The Recovery Act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy and changing the conversation about the economy in this country," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession."
While some congressional Republicans and others are dubious about the success of the stimulus plan, economists generally agree that the package has played a significant part in stabilizing the economy. They are less certain about the size of the impact.
"It's starting to play a role, helping us to have slightly positive rather than slightly negative GDP growth," said Phillip Swagel, an assistant Treasury secretary in the Bush administration who is now a visiting professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business. "It's a gigantic amount of fiscal stimulus, and anyone who tells you it has had no impact, you should be skeptical of."
--http://harlemvoiceblogs.blogspot.com
Half a year after Congress enacted the largest economic stimulus plan in the nation's history, the measure is contributing to what increasingly looks like a budding recovery, analysts say, but significant concern remains about rising unemployment and the initiative's contribution to the federal budget deficit.
With the Obama administration under fire for what critics call unrestrained spending and polls showing the American public ambivalent about the impact of the stimulus plan, officials are pushing back, seeking to highlight the role played by their polices in fueling a recovery.
Vice President Biden, making what the White House billed as a major speech Thursday, touted the role of the $787 billion stimulus program in lifting the economy.
"The Recovery Act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy and changing the conversation about the economy in this country," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession."
While some congressional Republicans and others are dubious about the success of the stimulus plan, economists generally agree that the package has played a significant part in stabilizing the economy. They are less certain about the size of the impact.
"It's starting to play a role, helping us to have slightly positive rather than slightly negative GDP growth," said Phillip Swagel, an assistant Treasury secretary in the Bush administration who is now a visiting professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business. "It's a gigantic amount of fiscal stimulus, and anyone who tells you it has had no impact, you should be skeptical of."
--http://harlemvoiceblogs.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)