According to the Capital Press, Karen Budd-Falen was curious how much money the federal government paid the lawyers who initiated cases against her clients and uncovered more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money that the government paid to environmental law firms between 2003 and 2007.  That represents an average of $940 million a year, compared to $922 million spent directly on the 986 endangered and threatened species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s annual report.

According to her research, Budd-Falen found that three environmental groups—Western Watersheds Council, Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity—filed more than 700 lawsuits against the U.S. government between 2000 and 2009.

“That money is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants and animals,” Budd-Falen told the Capital Press, “but to fund more lawsuits.”

According to Budd-Falen, environmental groups are eligible for government funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for the award of attorney fees to “prevailing parties” in cases against the government.  The firms also are accessing government funds through the Judgment Fund, which is a line-item appropriation in the federal budget used for paying claims against the government.

“We tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. These guys are charging between $350 and $450 an hour in legal fees.” Budd-Falen told Now Public.

“If you just look at the raw number and say ‘why in the world is the United States paying a million dollars bankrolling them to sue us,’ well that’s what congress set up through EAJA. That’s the law, we’re bound by it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Haws of Boise told Now Public.

Read the entire article here:

Note: Your tax dollars at work… paying lawyers to sue ourselves? WTF??? – FedUpEditor

One of the articles I have in the works is an opinion piece called “Something for Nothing… or Even Less” which will be about how lucrative it is to continue to stay unemployed. After all, the cruel United States of America has provided all sorts of safety nets for its disadvantaged, so much so that it almost pays to be a bum… sorry, I mean homeless person. Unfortunately, I was stuck in the welfare system back when I moved here from Iowa. But the benefits were so little that I had to find work… and quick! Now, I can almost make as much not working as I can in an entry level minimum wage job. Not to mention the additional benefits of health and dental care paid for by the taxpayers. How sad is that? I even contemplated going on unemployment when my census stint ended. Who knows how long they will extend the benefits?

But back to the emotional intensity issue. Perhaps people are having a letdown after the primaries. Although they didn’t put as many conservatives on the ballot as we would like. For example, there’s no way I will ever vote for Abel Moldonado for Lt. Governor… or anything for that matter. But the “moderates” who made it (Fiorina and Whitman, for example) have a good chance of winning in California’s political climate. The alternative Democrat choices (Boxer and Brown) are disasters we’ve already seen in action and have a proven track record of failure. Then we have Jim Judd for Congress and Robert Louis Stephens for Assembly who stand a good chance of winning according to a generic poll I just saw today.

On the down side, the Marin County Republican Central Committee was unable to remove the “moderate” Chair, Sashi McEntee, from her position, even though there was an apparent sentiment of anger over her choosing to openly back open primaries with a newspaper editorial. Regardless of the outcome, we have shown that grass roots groups like the Marin Conservative Forum and the North Bay and Bay Area Patriots actually can have as much or more influence than the local Republican Party. If they clean house next year that could change, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I, for one, am getting worn out with all the bad news coming out of this administration. It seems like there is a daily effort to undermine the Constitution, and none of our elected leaders seem to challenge Obama about it. Why do we even have a legislative body when many of the mandates the President is handing down are not privileges given to the Executive Branch? The recent health care mandate to demand insurance companies provide FREE services to their customers is a perfect example of Executive overreach. How is that even legal? These orders bypass the very congressmen and senators who were elected to pass laws. Yet Ms. Pelosi is mum about the usurpation of her powers by our President. Maybe because they are of the same mind and political party? I hardly see her standing still if Bush were trying to do the same thing. But that argument requires intellectual honesty; something liberals seem to lack.

Look at the race issue with the election tampering in Philadelphia. If that had been white people intimidating black people in front of the polls instead of the other way around, that’s all we would be hearing about on the mainstream media. Instead, about the only place we can hear about the incident is in alternative media or on Fox news. That is a sad commentary on the state of race relations in the United States. Watch the movie Invictus (whether factual or not) and tell me that Obama is following the same prescription that Mandela did in bringing his country together. Mandela, at least in the movie, was a man of principle and intellectual honesty. He knew that the law had to be color blind before race relations would improve. Instead, Obama is allowing the New Black Panthers to disobey the election laws which can only the, that is if people actually hear about it!

During the day I listen to shows like Hannity and Limbaugh when I can and am amazed at the people who call into the show supporting the administration’s handling of the incident… which is basically ignoring it. Again, no intellectual honesty. And in my opinion, this constant barrage of negativity leads to a let down to those of us who are pulling the cart. I’m sure that is the goal. By wearing us down, it’s easier to get us to stay with the status quo.

The perfect example came from my accountant who is a conservative. He said, “When it all comes down to it, Republican or Democrat, they are all the same!” Then he used an expletive.

Are they?

FedUpEditor

It’s been 30 years since the regulations limiting junk food sales in schools were updated, despite big changes in nutrition science.‪ Today, 23 million children and adolescents are obese or overweight.‪  Obesity rates for children between 6 and 11 years old have more than tripled over the last 40 years. [Note: so has this ban helped? NO! Liberals think that by limiting something they can change people's behavior, but obesity is on the RISE! Take a look in the mirror, Lynn. You're getting up there yourself!]‪

Throughout their lives, these children are at greater risk for heart disease, Type 2 Diabetes, stroke, cancer, and social and psychological problems.‪ One of the most important ways to help fight this epidemic is to ensure that higher quality, more nutritious foods are sold throughout the day in our schools.‪ [Note: This will not solve the problem. What it will take is a change in mindset!]

This is why I have introduced H.R. 1324, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act, which requires that all foods sold in schools throughout the entire school day are based on the most current nutrition science.‪ [Note: More nanny state government bureaucracy! We're too stupid to think for ourselves!]

This bill has 170 cosponsors and has been endorsed by over 90 public health, school, food and beverage industry, and nutrition groups, including the American Beverage Association, General Mills, and the American Heart Association.‪ I am pleased that this language has been included in Chairman George Miller’s (D-CA) H.R. 5504, the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act. [Note: And if everyone said it was a good idea to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you do it, Lynn? (Please say yes!}]

This provision does not affect school parties or foods sold during sporting events or band concerts in which parents are present. It only regulates foods sold in schools, and allows USDA to exempt foods sold as part of fundraisers. It’s also important to realize that schools that are switching to selling healthier foods and are not losing revenue.‪

Studies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Center for Weight and Health at U.C. Berkeley found that the majority of schools switching to healthier foods in their vending machines and a la carte lines actually increased their total revenues.

‪In other words, it is a win-win situation for schools—healthier students and a healthier bottom line as well‪‪.

[Note: This is a lose-lose for our schools since kids will now go off campus to the 7/11 or Safeway to buy their junk, leaving less time for studies. Lynne Woolsey, you are a loser! Resign now and let the grown ups run the government!]

I am Lynn Woolsey, congresswoman from Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, which means that I own half of the Golden Gate Bridge, so that makes me perfectly situated to talk about poor people, right? No, but I am perfectly prepared because I was one, a person in need of a lot of the discussion that you have in your volume that I am going to participate in and I was honored to be able to contribute to the volume about how culture shapes the way people in poverty live. I mean, we have to think about that, don’t we? What a concept. Values, norms, beliefs play very important roles in the way people meet the challenges of poverty, and as one of the essays in your volume illustrates, they also play important roles in shaping how lawmakers choose to address poverty issues. And it is a shame, a lot of people that make these decisions around here have never lived through anything but a really comfortable, easy life. But you know what? There are also a lot of members, even though they have not, that they get the picture. Our speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is one; I mean, she has had a very nice life. She understands and she cares very much about people who have less. So you do not have to have lived the life that I went through with my children at one point when we were on welfare to really get the picture. But, unfortunately, too many don’t and you can see it when all of a sudden the light goes on because they have got a grandchild with a disease, diabetes let us say, or something that they are facing – oh my goodness, this does happen. I am going on about my colleagues, but it is very important that even if they have not lived through something that you help them see and this volume that I participated in I hope they will read. The lesson I take from all of this is that those of us in Congress must constantly re-examine the way we frame problems on Capitol Hill. We have to see if we are keeping up with the changing reality on the ground.

In my commentary, I examined one area where lawmakers’ thinking and legislating has not kept pace at all, and that is the relationship between work and family. We are just starting to talk about that now, but it has been clear for many years now that the typical American family has changed. We used to be a nation of predominantly nuclear families, complete with one breadwinner, usually the male, and one at-home, full-time parent, 99.9 percent the female, home with the children, after school, what a nice way to live, Ozzie and Harriet. For the first time in history now women make up one-half of the workforce. Today four in five families with children still at home do not consist of the traditional male worker and the female homemaker. In addition, nearly four in ten mothers are primary breadwinners – primary breadwinners – for their families, while nearly two-thirds are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, bringing home at least a quarter of their family’s earnings. While there is a growing cultural awareness of this change, the laws governing work-life balance have not kept up. In fact, our country, the wealthiest country on this globe, ranks at the bottom of industrialized nations when it comes to such issues as paid sick and maternal and paternal leave, access to affordable childcare, policies that promote flexible workplaces. Lawmakers have been slow to recognize that the traditional distinctions between home and work and between sole breadwinner and stay-at-home mom have collapsed. The worlds of work and home have become interdependent and our legislation needs to reflect this. I mean, we have a society-and we are very responsible for that as legislators-we have a society where if a child is lucky enough to have two parents, both of those parents are in the workforce, not always but usually, and if the child has one parent, that parent certainly is in the workforce. So we need steps to integrate our laws in a more holistic way of seeing the relationship between family and work. Most notably, the Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA] with its provisions for unpaid, protected leave. A bill I have introduced and reintroduced and reintroduced, called The Balancing Act, will carry us much further in the direction we need to go. It is comprehensive legislation, it is a package that includes bills introduced by other members of Congress; it is an omnibus bill, it is huge. And when I talk in front of Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs I watch the women business people at it, I watch the older businessmen – this is a surprise – who have daughters and in the workforce now-get it, and then there is the group in between who say, “Well, Congresswoman, this is all very nice but we cannot afford it,” and all I say is we cannot afford not to do this. Figure it out. The Balancing Act would provide paid family medical leave for workers to care for family members – so that they can bond with new children at the birth, and then not just the mother, the father too – or for recovering from an illness or helping a parent, there is this sandwich generation, I am looking around at you, a lot of you in this room are going to be taking care of your parents as well as taking care of children. So we would expand FMLA to cover more workers, to provide leave for children’s extracurricular activities, to allow workers time to cope with the effects of domestic violence. I mean right now, domestic violence – you do not get paid time off or you do not get protected if you have to take time off from your job. So the package also provides grants to build childcare centers and for schools to offer hot breakfasts, as well as to expand before- and after-school activities, and for voluntary universal preschool – so you can see it is huge. It has provisions to give part-time workers benefits – what a concept – and the bill would also encourage employers to allow their employees to telecommute and it supports flexible work schedules. There are other bills that recognize the new reality for American families, including efforts to permit employees to request flexible hours, expand the Family Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners, and allow breast-feeding in the workplace. The fact that these bills have been introduced shows that more and more lawmakers are recognizing the new reality of the American family. The fact that none of these bills has passed shows that we still have a very, very long way to go. So your efforts here are not wasted on most of us; it will be good I think to make sure that we get that out to all members of the House and the Senate so they cannot pretend like they have not seen it and it will not be the first time they have heard about these issues but maybe they can concentrate on one or two of them. And staff, staff are very important, so make sure that legislative staff know that you have put together this wonderful, wonderful piece of work. So, I thank you all. I do not know if you want questions and answers or for me to just go away, I will do whatever you want.

Editor’s note: Remember, Democrats have been working on poverty since before FDR and have not solved the problem yet. As long as Woolsey thinks she can keep her job talking about solving the problem, she’ll appease everyone. Jim Judd, on the other hand, is a business man who has actually created jobs and wealth in his community of Cotati instead of talking about it. A vote for him will go a long way to putting Woolsey out to pasture where she belongs!

On Thursday, June 17, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on preventing employers from misclassifying employees as independent contractors. The hearing focused on the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (EMPA), a recently introduced bill intended to reduce instances of worker misclassification through new record-keeping requirements, notice requirements, and the imposition of civil penalties for employer violations.

Chairman Harkin (D-IA) opened the hearing by arguing that independent contractors are not afforded sufficient protections under the labor law, such as those provided by minimum wage standards, overtime requirements, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, safety and health laws and antidiscrimination provisions. Harkin asserted that a few “unscrupulous” employers thus make economic challenges “even more difficult for their workers by intentionally misclassifying them as ‘independent contractors’ to gain an advantage over their law-abiding competitors.” Harkin also argued employee misclassification costs federal and state governments “billions of dollars in unpaid revenues.” For example, it deprives governments of the payments that support unemployment and workers’ compensation systems, as employers are only required to make these payments on behalf of employees and not independent contractors. Accordingly, Harkin posited that while employer misclassification laws are currently in place in several states, a federal legislative response is necessary.

Read the entire article here.

The problem with progressivism is that, just because it sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government should be doing it or spending money on it. After all, their track record of success is pretty bleak no matter how noble they think their causes are.

The original founders saw the USA as a collection of individual countries (states) united under one limited federal government so that we would not end up where we are today; top down central planning. Instead they saw a country with a small federal government and strong state governments. Yet here we are 234 years after the Declaration of Independence, and we are exactly where they feared we would be; huge federal government (much more powerful than King George was?), unbridled deficit spending, freedoms being incrementally taken away in the name of “fairness” and religion kicked to the curb (unless you are a Muslim extremist). How did this happen? Over time, that’s how.

There is only so much bandwidth and money with which to tackle all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed over the years. And then our congressmen use those bad laws which survive to serve as precedents upon which to write more bad laws. This is the reason for the Constitution. It is a measuring stick by which laws are to be written (or not). But with Federal Judges seeing it as a “living, breathing document” they have twisted the Constitution to mean something other than what was originally intended. So it would seem the problem with progressivism is that in top down planning everyone must do it the same way regardless if it’s a good idea or not. Where’s the freedom? Besides that, it is not “constitutional”.

The original idea was that each state was a unique experiment free to try different things to see what worked to solve their challenges. It was even codified in the 10th Amendment in case the original version of the Constitution didn’t make that clear. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Obama and Progressives call this a “negative” right. Actually, it is exactly right (correct)… period. Each state government was supposed to decide for itself how it should be run. They could then look to other states and see what worked in order to implement or improve upon those which their constituents found favorable. Not so today. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any area in any state that didn’t come under the rule of some bureau of the federal government.

The original purpose of the Federal Government was to solve disputes and problems which crossed state lines. Read George Washington’s biography and you will learn that he viewed the federal government as a necessary evil and loathed the thought of it. He knew what “progressives” would do if given half a chance.

Examples of the founders intent for responsibilities of Federal government would be building and maintaining bridges between bordering states, or regulating commerce on shared waterways that touch several states. Two of the things the federal government is actually supposed to do, defending our borders or protecting our freedom overseas, are the same things Progressives complain about spending money on. They say we should be spending the money here on infrastructure or education. As in debt as we are, we probably shouldn’t be spending the money anywhere!

If you want to see the failures of progressivism you only need to look at states like Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii or California and cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, etc. to see that the progressive experiment doesn’t work. High crime and high unemployment are the norm for liberal bastions such as these. Yet what happens when Lynn Woolsey talks about how we need a progressive resurgence? Socialist ideologues come out of the woodwork and praise her, even though she and her buddies have spent us into the poor house thanks to progressives. Those people will never be persuaded to see the truth.

It is my belief that the majority of people in this area are liberal because they can afford to be. Things are pretty good for many people in Marin County. Fortunately, the high unemployment rate in California hasn’t really hit the San Francisco Bay Area yet… yet. Does that mean we should wait until it gets worse before we do something? Unlike an Obama administration spokesperson, we are not looking for a crisis to use to our advantage. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that to change people’s minds.

What we must do is seek out the reasonable Democrats, the patriotic ones who love our country and believe the party has left them, and turn them to our side like Reagan did. There are common sense, patriotic people on the other side who don’t like what their Democratic Party has become. They may not change parties, but they can be persuaded to vote for a candidate who wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and help businesses create jobs, among other ideals that will truly embody progress.

- FedUpEditor

Here is an Editorial from the PD and the link to it online

Day in and day out we are being presented with stories about the oil leak in the Gulf with finger pointing as to who is to blame for it. Industry blames regulators, and regulators blame the various industry players; the players start blaming each other. Why isn’t the environmental lobby being implicated? After all, if it weren’t for their strict no-drilling policy in other “safe” places, would we have to go so far off-shore to retrieve oil with dangerous deep-water drilling techniques? The answer, of course, is no.

But put all that aside. Just because there have been a few disasters related to oil production, refining and transport, does that mean we should stop drilling altogether like Arnold Schwarzenegger has concluded? With that same logic, any time a plane goes down, we would discontinue air travel. It is as stupid and predictable as those anti-gun zealots who think crime will stop if we ban firearms. All or nothing.

And if we stop drilling, does that mean the rest of the world stops drilling? No! In fact, other countries are ramping up their domestic oil production because we are not. Seeing us as the suckers we are, they know there is no other alternative energy source right now, and they have leverage over us.

Lynn Woolsey is leading the charge against big oil and big coal. Google reported many news stories over the last couple of days mentioning her name and quoting her, not like the lame representative she is, but as if she is riding in on her white horse to save us all. Her committees have been especially harsh on these two industries because of the recent problems; the mining disaster and the oil spill in the gulf. It’s almost as if Woolsey thinks she can legislate our way to never having another disaster or another lost life. Could this be considered a “God” complex? After all, she has been in the House so long I’m sure she thinks she is invincible. I hear she is so confident (or is that arrogant?) that she will not campaign here this fall, but will go out and help other Democrats get elected. Is she counting her chickens? But I am getting off my point.

Let me ask a few questions of Lynn Woolsey. If everyone starts running electric vehicles like you propose, where will the electricity come from? Have you thought that far ahead to consider that California has brown outs almost every summer as it is? Are you offering any alternative solutions to producing electricity in our state or in the nation? You talk about wind and solar as if they are our salvation. But I hear environmentalists are against putting solar panels in the desert to preserve its pristine beauty. That would make wind farms out of the question as well. How do you, Ms. Woolsey, propose to supply our country’s energy needs? Get back to me after we put you out on your rear end this November.

Now let’s look at our President. We are 18 months into his presidency, and Obama is still pointing to the failures of the previous administration for our woes today. It is wearing thin, as polls show. For Heaven’s sake, he has had more than enough time to do at least ONE thing right, but day after day he continues to lay blame and make excuses. The only solutions he has are to raise taxes, spend more money, create more government welfare and pass the buck. Is that what we want from our leaders?

I, for one, am tired of it. I know most of you are too. So is the country, and polls show there will be a huge surge to the right in November if the trend continues. Dick Morris says we stand to pick up 10 Senate seats (including California where he thinks Boxer is especially vulnerable to Chuck DeVore). This is because people are tired of the blame game.

No matter how you dress it up, people are waking up to the fact that government, you know, the ones who caused these problems, are certainly not the ones to solve them. If anything, people are learning that actually solving problems is not in the government’s best interest. Only saying they are going to solve them is business as usual. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can blame whomever they want for the housing crisis, but they should be pointing into the mirror when doing so. Let’s send them back to the Minor League this Fall.

- FedUpEditor

It’s true we are spending lots of money on the two wars, but not nearly as much as the money we are spending here at home on worthless government jobs and their benefits. It is killing our economy, and the war will now be brought home. Woolsey thinks her seat is safe, so much so that she will not campaign in her own district this fall. Pure arrogance.

What she fails to realize is that people (even Democrats) are tired of the endless spending and want to move this train wreck off the tracks and rebuild our engine of economic prosperity. With unemployment hovering at nearly 10% (and ready to climb as the recession drags on) Congress is set to extend unemployment benefits once again. This will disguise the real number of people out of work. As the printing presses whirl away kicking out endless supplies of more and more devalued dollars, Woolsey thinks she can buy her seat.

Woolsey doesn’t understand that people of Marin and Sonoma Counties are the ones producing so that others can feed off their hard work. The ones I have talked to are tired of it… both parties. After 17 years in Congress, are we better off now with Democrats running everything? You be the judge.

In the meantime, take a look at Jim Judd for Congress and see what you think. He is a commonsense guy who thinks both party establishments are to blame. Woolsey is going to be surprised come November!