The tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, construction workers and others who survived the worst terrorist assault in U.S. history and risked their lives in its wake will soon be informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s terrorism watch list, according to a letter obtained by HuffPost.

Any of the responders who are not compared to the database of suspected terrorists would be barred from getting treatment for the numerous, worsening ailments that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law was passed to address.

It’s a requirement that was tacked onto the law during the bitter debates over it last year.

The letter from Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, informs medical providers and administrators that they should begin letting patients know before the new program kicks in this July.

“This is absurd,” said Glen Kline, a former NYPD emergency services officer. “It’s silly. It’s stupid. It’s asinine.”

“It’s comical at best, and I think it’s an insult to everyone who worked on The Pile and is sick and suffering from 9/11,” said John Feal, a former construction worker who lost half a foot at Ground Zero and runs the advocacy group Fealgood Foundation.

The provision was added in an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) during the heated debate over the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee last May.

Sept. 11 responders in the committee room at the time mostly shook their heads at the move, which Democrats accepted on a voice vote after battling to bar other amendments on abortion and immigration that might have killed the bill.

But suddenly the point is no longer just a strategic concession to get a law passed.

As doctors and administrators begin acting on the federal instructions, participants in the 9/11 treatment and monitoring programs will soon be told that their names, places of birth, addresses, government ID numbers and other personal data will be provided to the FBI to ensure they are not terrorists.

Howard’s instructions include a sample letter to responders designed to minimize alarm.

“Although neither we nor [the Centers for Disease Control]/NIOSH anticipate the name of any individual in the current Programs will be on the list, CDC/NIOSH is expressly required by law to implement this particular requirement of the Act,” it says.

“Thank you for your understanding. We look forward to working with you and ensuring that you continue to receive uninterrupted services under the new WTC Health Program,” it concludes.

Feal, who counts hundreds of first responders in his foundation’s membership, predicted the letters would not go over well.

“When cops and firefighters get this at home, they’re going to hit the roof,” he said.

Kline, who sits on the Fealgood Foundation’s board, said he personally wasn’t offended, but couldn’t think of a good reason for cops and firefighters to be screened by the FBI in order to keep getting treatment.

“I mean, who are we even talking about — the undocumented workers who cleaned the office buildings?” wondered Kline Thursday. “We know who all the cops, firefighters and construction workers were. They’re all documented.

“Is the idea that a terrorist stayed to help clean up? And then stayed all these years to try and get benefits?” he asked. “In all the things I’ve seen out of Washington, this probably takes the cake.”

Some are more understanding.

“Do we want terrorists getting money? No,” said Anthony Flammia, a former NYPD Highway Patrol officer and Sept. 11 responder. “How do you know if there were any terrorists there? Were they there as observers, watching? Probably.”

But he noted that his perspective likely would not be shared, especially if people whose names are similar to actual terror suspects get flagged, as happens with air travelers.

“I’ve got nothing to hide, so it’s no big deal for me, but there’s got to be safeguards in place to protect the people who are innocent,” Flammia said. “It’s going to be controversial,” he added. “It’s probably going to create an uproar, but I think it will dissipate. I hope they’re ready to answer people’s questions.”

Congressman Stearns said in a statement that his intent was to answer exactly the questions raised by Flammia.

“This amendment was adopted in the full Energy and Commerce Committee without opposition and it merely requires that the names of those receiving health benefits be cross-checked with the terrorist watch list to ensure that no terrorists get these benefits,” Stearns said.

“These benefits are not just for our first responders; nearly anyone who was in the vicinity or worked on a cleanup crew afterward is eligible,” he noted.

The prohibition is included in two parts of the bill. One specifically covers responders, while the other deals with all survivors, including office workers, bystanders and residents.

Feal acknowledged that the terrorist screening has to be done because it is the law, and that the letters have to go out.

But he holds Stearns responsible, as well as several other Republicans who were hostile to the 9/11 bill, and tried to tack all manner of amendments onto it.

“I think Congressman Stearns is stabbing at pettiness. He’s a buffoon,” Feal said. “We get sicker and die, and they’re going to disseminate a letter wondering whether we’re terrorists or not. … I think everybody needs to start showing a little more compassion.”

“Behave yourself and be polite” is how Representative Ron Paul describes his regulatory philosophy about rearing five children. Mr. Paul, a Republican, and his wife of 53 years, Carol, never believed in assigned chores or mandates.

They did not give out allowances, which they viewed as a parental version of a government handout. They did not believe in strict curfews; Mr. Paul says that unintended consequences — like speeding home to beat the clock — can result from excessive meddling from a central authority.

While Mr. Paul’s laissez-faire views produced a family of likeminded thinkers — “We’re all on board,” says the oldest son, Ronnie Paul — they inspired the middle child, Rand, to follow his father’s career path, first into medicine and now politics. If he prevails in November after winning the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in Kentucky last month, he and his father would form a two-man libertarian dynasty.

Father and son are described as each other’s political sounding boards, confidants and support systems. “Dad and Rand spent hours having great philosophical discussions about issues,” said Joy Paul Leblanc, the youngest sibling.

“Everyone always said, ‘If anyone runs for anything, it will be Rand,’ ” the congressman said.

The two Pauls have similar economic ideologies, overlapping organizations and Internet-based fund-raising apparatuses. The elder Mr. Paul, 74, dispensed behind-the-scenes advice during his son’s bid for the Senate seat, in which he upset the favorite, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

In an interview with The NY Times, Dr. Paul, the two-time libertarian presidential candidate, referred to his son’s campaign as “our race.” When his son faced criticism recently over comments that some interpreted as skeptical of federal civil rights laws, the congressman was shaken.

Rand Paul, 47, has described his father as his political hero. But he is quick to emphasize that he has never been dependent on him. “I think my dad has helped me tremendously,” he said in a joint interview with his father for a Kentucky television station this year. “But the only way I win is on my own two feet.”

He decided to go into politics despite his lineage as much as because of it, family members said. “Ron believes that you are not supposed to initiate force on anyone else,” Mrs. Paul said. Her husband promoted self-reliance in his children, and their choices and views flowed from that, she said.

Friends of the family describe a traditional household with early American décor and the frequent aroma of Mrs. Paul’s chocolate chip cookies, if not fish sticks. They have lived since July 4, 1968, in the same middle-class enclave of Lake Jackson, where the streets are named for trees, flowers and fauna (the Pauls live on Blossom). They owned a series of collies (Julie, Kippy and Cricket) and a Maltese (Liberty), and the kids were expected, though not required, to feed the pooches, make their own beds, clear their own dishes from the table and not talk back to their elders.

As a member of Congress, Dr. Paul spent most of his time in Washington, upon returning to Texas he often crisscrossed his sprawling district attending political events. At home, he prized the solitude of his lawnmower. Mrs. Paul was a stay-at-home mom, longtime Girl Scout troop leader and self-described “busybody” who prided herself on knowing exactly what everyone was doing. If a child misbehaved, her husband did not spank or yell. Instead, he gave them written assignments, “He believed in exercising the brain.”

Ron Paul said he was not philosophically opposed to centralized authority, as long as it existed close to home, or within it. “We didn’t say the kids could do anything they wanted,” he said.

“They were a very Brady Bunch-type American family,” said Eric Dondero, a longtime former aide to Ron Paul. “As different as their politics are, their personal life was very normal.”

A strong libertarian bent ran through the Paul brood, and there are no apparent outliers. “Once you learn about the broken monetary policy, there is no other way,” said Ronnie Paul, a retired engineer at Dow Chemical in nearby Freeport. “We believe that stealing from people is not good, whether you’re the government or whether you have a mask on your face.”

Rand particularly absorbed the family ethic of exerting his free will. Though never rebellious, he sometimes bristled at being given too many directions. As a junior in high school, his mother recalled, he got a paper back from a geometry teacher that, while largely correct, was filled with what he considered to be unnecessary red marks. He walked into the principal’s office and asked to be moved into another class. “He and that teacher were not on the same wavelength,” said Mrs. Paul, who added that she and her husband supported Rand’s actions. “Rand was someone who took care of his own problems.”

As a teenager, he studied the Austrian economists that his father revered, as well as the iconic free-market novelist and philosopher, Ayn Rand (she was not the inspiration for Rand’s name, which is short for Randall; he was called Randy growing up).

Rand walked door to door in support of his father’s first Congressional race, in 1974, and while a student at Baylor University, he helped in his father’s unsuccessful Senate race against Phil Gramm in 1984. (When Ron Paul had to be in Washington for a Congressional vote, Rand stepped in for him in a debate against Mr. Gramm — it was his first public speaking appearance). Rand would take it upon himself to organize the other family members on neighborhood walking tours, canvasses and appearances.

“We would all be home for a big Christmas dinner,” his father said. “And Rand would be talking politics. He educated himself on politics in ways that I’ve never even cared about.”

More recently, Rand traveled to several states in 2008 on behalf of his father’s insurgent campaign for the Republican nomination — an enterprise that gained surprising traction at the grass roots and brought in over $35 million in campaign donations.

Mr. Paul was loath to guide his five children in any vocational direction, although three of them followed him into careers in medicine. (Rand is an ophthalmologist, who like his father attended Duke University Medical School and is often referred to as Dr. Paul by his staff and supporters; Joy is an obstetrician-gynecologist, and Robert is a family doctor.)

The father was insistent about allowing his children as much autonomy as possible and he believed, for instance, that economic subsidies (like allowances) could foster dependence. He discouraged Rand or any of his siblings from accepting financial aid to attend college, nor would he accept Medicare or Medicare payments from patients, calling it “stolen money” in a 1996 interview with The Austin American-Statesman. (Rand Paul, however, was criticized recently for opposing cuts to Medicare physician payments.)

While Ron Paul supports his son’s Senate campaign, his participation has been noticeably arms-length, owing to a concern that his views might be too outside the mainstream for a general electorate, particularly on foreign policy. He has suggested, for example, that the United States needs to explore Al Qaeda’s motives. “Nobody wants to talk about the motive,” he said last January. “But it’s out there, it’s laid on a platter. Bin Laden writes of it.”

When asked whether anyone told him to keep his distance from Kentucky, the elder Mr. Paul said: “I’ve got a life to lead. I have a job. And when I’m off, I want to be in Texas.”

He added that there are perils for political heirs relying too heavily on their patrons. “It can be very dangerous when somebody thinks they inherit these things,” he said.

Family members say the congressman has been shaken by the recent storm his son has faced over remarks in which he seemed to take issue, on libertarian grounds, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At the outset of an interview on Capitol Hill, Mr. Paul placed the controversy — “the agitation,” he called it — off limits. But then he immediately referred to a recent column supportive of his son in the Congressional newspaper, The Hill, and volunteered that he had just telephoned the column’s author, Lanny Davis, a Clinton White House aide, to thank him.

Mr. Davis said, “I heard a father’s concern more than I did any political concern,” and described the conversation as emotional.

Mr. Paul conceded that it is easier to be the candidate under attack than to be a family member of one. “No matter how well you arm yourself, no matter how well you know the system,” he said in the interview, “it really hurts when it’s your son.”

In a recent Supreme Court decision, the conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects – over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans’ rights of protection from police abuse “upside down.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn’t have to; has waived his right to remain silent. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters.

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the recent supreme court decision said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.

“It’s a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show,” Friedman said.

The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

Kennedy, writing the decision for the court’s conservatives, said that wasn’t enough.

“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police,” Kennedy said. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”

He was joined in the 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Prosecutors cheered the decision, saying it takes the guesswork out of when police have to stop questioning suspects. “Is it too much to ask for a criminal suspect to say he doesn’t want to talk to police?” said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.

This is the third time this session that the Supreme Court has placed limits on Miranda rights, which come from a 1966 decision – it involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix – requiring officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can’t afford one.

Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect’s request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody – the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer – and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.

For Justice Sotomayor, deciding to make suspects speak to have the right to remain silent was a step too far. Sotomayor, the court’s newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court’s liberals, saying the majority’s decision “turns Miranda upside down.”

“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which counterintuitively requires them to speak,” she said. “At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.”

She was joined in her dissent by Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution “does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights.”

“An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect’s rights and permitting valuable police investigation,” Kagan said in court papers.

Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering “yes,” “no,” “I don’t know,” nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down,” Thompkins said, “Yes.”

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

“In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police,” Kennedy said. “Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins’ right to remain silent before interrogating him.”

Sotomayor called that reasoning “a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation.”

The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.

Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets–traditional, online and citizen generated–and an even greater amount misinformation.

“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.

He told FoxNews.com that “some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of”, so he wants to “install a process that will help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust”.

“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”

Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized with politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They say that adding members of the so-called fourth estate to the list of government regulated occupations would likely be found unconstitutional.

“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert, the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.

The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the state legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.

“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.

“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”

According to the bill, reporters must provide the licensing board proof of:

–”Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

–Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.

–Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.

–Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.

–Three or more writing samples.

Reporters will also have to pay an application and registration fee.

The bill does not prevent reporters who are not licensed by the state from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.

Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He says he’s winding down his two decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.

“I would argue the first amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The first amendment protects those as well.”

“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”

Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters’ credentials, background and experience.

“I’m talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,” Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.

The senator said that he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.

“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate–non professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists–and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.

But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust she said the bill introducing government-licensed reporters is just a bad idea.

Plus, she said that governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process–and that these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.

“I think that his concern is a legitimate one,” McBride said, “But you’re not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.”

Introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, the measure failed by a vote of 356-65. Five Republicans joined 60 Democrats in voting for the resolution.

While Kucinich’s measure was never expected to pass, it nevertheless marked the first legislative challenge to the Afghan war since Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on December 1. The debate — and an earlier procedural vote, which saw 225 lawmakers vote to allow the measure to proceed to the House floor — also revealed the depth of antiwar sentiment among the president’s liberal allies in Congress.

“Unless this Congress acts to claim its constitutional responsibility, we will stay in Afghanistan for a very, very long time, at great cost to our troops and to our national priorities,” said Kucinich, holding aloft a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution, in preliminary remarks on the House floor. “Or we can set a date — December 31, 2010 — by which we must leave. And this is exactly what the resolution seeks to do.”

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, countered by invoking the memory of Army Specialist Jarrett Griemel, a 20-year-old Texas native and member of the 25th Infantry Division Battalion who died last June from injuries he sustained in Afghanistan.

“He believed in protecting our country,” Poe said of Griemel. “He believed in it so much he was willing to leave his wife and go halfway around the world to fight an enemy on the enemy’s own turf. And he believed it so much he was willing to give his life for the rest of us. So [if] we pass this resolution, what message do we send to Jared’s family or young bride? That his sacrifice just wasn’t enough? That it was all for naught? We don’t quit war because war is hard. War has always been hard.”

Rep. Patrick Kennedy D-R.I., was the most animated lawmaker, at times shouting himself hoarse in support for the Kucinich measure on the House floor.

Some lawmakers crossed party lines to adopt their stance on the Kucinich measure, which had sixteen co-sponsors.

“This war is an illegal war. This war is an amoral war. This war is an unconstitutional war,” said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. “The consequence of 9/11 will be that we will bog the American people in a no-win war and demoralize the people…The country is totally bankrupt and we’re spending billions of dollars on these useless wars…History shows that all empires end because they expand too far and they bankrupt the country, just as the Soviet system came down. And that’s what bin Laden was hoping for.”

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, warned his colleagues not to “undermine recent gains” in the war against the terrorist networks. “Have we forgotten what happened to America on 9/11?” Skelton said. “Have we forgotten who did it? Have we forgotten those who protected [al-Aqeda] and gave them a safehaven?” Afghanistan, Skelton said, “is the epicenter of terrorism….After eight long years we have a strategy for success in Afghanistan and we have a president who appointed the right leaders…Success is not guaranteed in this mission. But passing this resolution guarantees failure in Afghanistan and poses a risk — a serious risk — that we will once again face the same situation that existed on September 11, 2001.”

Supporters of the resolution contended the Obama administration lacks a legal basis under the War Powers Act for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. The 1973 law was enacted in response to repeated escalations of the Vietnam War, by successive White Houses, with limited assent from the Congress. The law requires the president to seek re-authorization from the legislature if he deploys troops for longer than ninety days.

Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan in 2001, one week after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Advocates of continued U.S. operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the two major terrorist networks active in Afghanistan, contended the 2001 resolution still provides formal authority for Obama to continue the war effort. That effort is now in its ninth year, with an estimated 1,000 American lives lost.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

At a time when the federal government is paying record salaries and hiring record numbers as the rest of America suffers punishing unemployment, Dr. Ron Paul is operating his congressional office with a frugality that recognizes the current economic climate and respects the suffering of the American people.

Meanwhile Chuck Rangel who was recently accused of tax fraud and ethics violations will continue to serve as the chairman of the ways and means committee.

Thank You Dr. Paul for believing in what you say, and living the words you preach.

Bunning objected to a request from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to pass a 30-day extension of the measures, then defended his stand in a debate with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

“I want to extend those provisions just as bad as the leader does,” he said. “But we need to pay for them.”

Other Republicans sought to use the Senate’s morning business period to change the subject, but several Democrats hammered away at Bunning’s use of Senate rules to prevent approval of the stopgap legislation since Thursday.

“One single Republican senator is standing in the way of unemployment benefits for 400,000 Americans,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on the Senate floor. She said Bunning’s stand is also blocking COBRA health insurance benefits to 500,000 Americans, forcing doctors to take a 21 percent cut on Medicare reimbursement rates and preventing the extension of critical highway funds.

Hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers faced an end to their jobless benefits Monday, and the federal government furloughed about 2,000 employees without pay, as a result of Bunning’s efforts to block legislation that would fund $10 billion in federal programs.

Lawmakers failed to reach an agreement last week on tax credits, unemployment benefits and a short-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund. Bunning derailed the bill on Thursday when it came to the floor for unanimous approval, withholding his consent.

“If we can’t find $10 billion to pay for something we all support, we will never pay for anything on the floor of this US Senate,” Mr. Bunning said.

“The bottom line is that Senator Bunning wants to renew these important programs,” spokesman Mike Reynard said. However, the senator “feels very strongly that we can’t keep adding to the debt.”

Now, the Senate is likely to pass a larger package, but not until later this week.

The bill Bunning opposes would extend provisions that were included in last year’s stimulus package, including one in which the federal government assumed 65 percent of the cost of COBRA health benefits. It would perpetuate other key programs, including one that would keep Medicare reimbursement rates at current levels.

Currently unemployed workers can continue to collect benefits for up to 99 weeks, or about $33,000 total.

In January this year, less than one month ago President Obama urged the legislature to pass laws that would require washington to pay for the bills they pass. Calling it common sense.

Join in the debate on twitter with “#hcrsummit”

The Conservative Political Action Conference’s presidential straw poll, a key marker of the mood among conservative voters, apparently didn’t mean anything to the network. And if it did mean something, the only real result is bragging rights for the individual candidates who were so well exposed. And hey, even Dick Cheney showed up.

Or, at least that’s how Fox News characterized the poll, after it was reported that Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) had won it by a wide margin.

CPAC participants voted for Paul as their favored candidate by some 31 percent, giving him the largest margin of victory in recent years. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has won the vote over the last three years, was the runner up with 22 percent. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was third with seven percent.

Over 10,000 people attended CPAC this year. Among them, 2,395 voted in the straw poll.

“It is way early, it is unscientific,” said a Fox News host, even as the split-screen showed Glenn Beck on stage at the conference. “Perhaps it offers nothing more than bragging rights, uh, through the course of this year. But, it is quite a, uh, enthusiastic crowd. What a difference a year makes.”

What a difference a year makes, indeed. Paul himself said something quite similar a day prior, when he spoke before the largest, loudest audience of any other presenter.

He asked if the crowd remembered when he was the guy “off in the corner” predicting doom, and none in the media paid him any serious mind.

“All the sudden, the crash that I had predicting all along: it came,” Paul said. “And now, Fox News TV has had me on about 60 times since the campaign was over.”

On its Web site, Fox News said that the vote is “not necessarily a good forecaster” of conservatives’ leanings nation wide.

Jake Gibson, micro-blogging for Fox News’s Live Shots, wrote that Paul’s win was “surprising” and caused very audible booing throughout the crowd. Meanwhile, Live Shots writer Kelley Beaucar Vlahos characterized the poll as an annual competition between the Republicans’ “bright lights.”

Paul is now, apparently, counted among them. Or is he? National Review praised him, jeering “Feel the ‘Ronmentum,’” thus triggering a sharp response from Robert Costa.

“Some older CPAC attendees don’t seem to care much for the Texas congressman, sure, but many young activists seem to regard him as a hero of sorts,” he wrote. “When he talks about the debt, like he did on Friday, calling it a ‘monster’ that will ‘eat up’ our future, it was with a passion that you can’t fake in politics. He also didn’t mind challenging many of the room’s security hawks on foreign policy.”

Indeed, Costa touched on a key undercurrent at this year’s CPAC: youth. According to the straw poll’s detailed breakdown [PDF link], 48 percent of the participants were students. A full 80 percent of respondents said their number one issue is “to promote individual liberty” and “reduce the size of government.” Sixty-four percent of participants were male.

Conservative blog Hot Air questioned whether the poll could be taken seriously, adding: “53 percent say they wish the GOP had a better field of presidential candidates. Is that an outlier produced by the Paulnut contingent too, or genuine proof that there’s room for a dark horse?”

Huckabee, now a paid Fox News contributor, joined other conservatives in kicking sand on Paul’s victory, telling one of his coworkers that he abstained from CPAC because it had been taken over by libertarian activists.

“CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year,” he said, according to Politico.

He also knocked the conference’s relevance this year in particular, with so much activity around the tea parties.

“Because of the way that it solicits sponsors, it’s almost becomes a pay-for-play,” he said, taking a shot at the group’s credibility as a whole. “It’s kind of like, who will pay money to be able to be a sponsor and get time in the program. That’s one of the things that has hurt its credibility in the last couple of years.”

FireDogLake noted that even Ann Coulter told a CPAC crowd that she agrees with Paul on everything, except his foreign policy. “Or, put another way,” wrote FDL user Blue Texan, “Coulter and the neoconservatives that have taken over the Republican Party want Ron Paul’s pre-WWI, pre-Fed, pre-Social Security, pre-IRS federal government — to go with LBJ’s Great Society military.”

Among the poll’s participants, 98 percent said they disapproved of the job President Obama is doing. Sixty-eight percent said they approved of congressional Republicans’ actions.

In 2009, CPAC was arguably the biggest event in conservative politics all year, featuring right-wing all-stars like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and many more. In 2008, pollsters were shocked when Romney beat Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by just one percent of the vote, even after announcing the suspension of his presidential campaign.

That year, Paul tied for third with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 12 percent of the vote. In the same poll for 2009, Ron Paul again came in third place, this time with 13 percent of the vote. He was bested by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, at 14 percent, and Mitt Romney, with 20.

“I believe we are on the verge of something very significant,” Paul told CPAC in 2010.

Strangely, in The Washington Post’s Monday coverage of the GOP’s 2012 presidential contenders, the congressman from Texas was not mentioned once. Staff writer Chris Cillizza instead plugged Romney as the party’s “nominal front-runner.”

Watch Paul’s full CPAC speech here.

This video is from Fox News, broadcast Feb. 20, 2010, as culled by watchdog group Media Matters.

Watch Paul’s full CPAC speech here.

This video is from Fox News, broadcast Feb. 20, 2010, as culled by watchdog group Media Matters.

Paul tells CNBC he’s “leaning to being undecided”

Monday morning, Paul revealed his 2012 plans on CNBC’s Squawk Box. Or lack thereof.

“You don’t know and I don’t know,” Paul told CNBC’s Joe Kernan, “so I don’t have any plans made. I take one day at a time and that keeps me kind of busy.”

Noting “the numbers” he received in the poll, the CNBC host prodded Paul, “Are you leaning towards doing it again?”

“No, I’m leaning to being undecided,” Paul joked.

But Paul admitted that “it is significant and it does get me excited.”

Paul suggested that “maybe the sentiments about me are changing.”

“I think there’s definitely been a shift in attitude,” he said. “It’s not the conventional wisdom of the old Republican Party conservatism. I think something new is coming along.”

The following video aired on CNBC on 2/22/10:

“I’ve got other things to do quite frankly for my constituents here in Las Vegas who rely on me to do the right thing as a mayor,” explained Mayor Goodman.

Mayor Goodman has more important things like attend budget meetings during a major shortfall than meet with President Barack Obama when he visits Las Vegas Friday, even though he’s invited by the White House.

“Were you surprised to get that invitation in light of comments you’ve made before and your opinion on him and what he says,” asked Action News reporter Heather Klein.

“A little bit in the sense I would think they would know that I would say I’m not coming,” said Mayor Goodman.

They say time heals all wounds but not this time. Mayor Goodman not backing down after the president used Las Vegas the example of where not to go if you’re saving money.

This was strike two for the mayor.

“We are hurting, we have people in foreclosures, we have people having a hard time feeding their families and we can’t stand to have a flippant statement made,” said Mayor Goodman.

“I haven’t heard an apology, I haven’t heard a response, all I do is get invitations,” Goodman went on to say.

Invitations Mayor Oscar Goodman respectfully or depending on your point of view not so respectfully declines. The mayor says his presence isn’t necessary its more protocol than anything else. However, he says all it will take is a simple phone call and he will be there ready to move on.

The poll, conducted by International Communications Research, found 60 percent of voters would support the tax to help struggling states and would prefer it over other tax increases or budget cuts.

However smokers may disagree.

“An increase in tobacco tax rates is not only sound public health policy but a smart and predictable way to help boost the economy and generate long-term health savings for states facing deepening budget deficits,” said John Seffrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

“We have irrefutable evidence that raising the tobacco tax lowers smoking rates among adults and deters millions of children from picking up their first cigarette,” Seffrin said in a statement.

The report was released by the Cancer Action Network, the advocacy arm of the American Cancer Society, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

All these non-profit groups have long supported taxing tobacco more as a way to discourage smoking.

The report, available here, projects the revenue that each state could earn by increasing cigarette taxes, based on research that shows a 10 percent cigarette tax increase reduces total consumption by 4 percent.

It projects that a $1 a pack cigarette tax would prompt 1.2 million adult smokers to quit.

“In 2007, Texas increased its cigarette tax by $1 per pack from 41 cents to $1.41 per pack,” the report reads. The next year, cigarette tax revenues nearly tripled from $523 million to $1.5 billion, despite a 21 percent decline in sales.

Analysts agree that higher taxes prompt many to quit, although some smokers merely switch to cheaper brands. In October, cigarette makers Philip Morris International Inc and Reynolds American Inc blamed the economy and a new 62 cent per pack federal tax for declining sales.

Federal taxes now total $1.01. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said in January that the average U.S. cost for a pack of cigarettes was $5.15 and that the Centers for Disease Control estimates the health-related costs of smoking at $10.47 a pack.

VOTER SUPPORT

The groups also surveyed 847 registered voters and found 60 percent favor raising the tobacco tax to help state budgets while 38 percent were opposed..

The survey, with a margin of error of three points, found that 72 percent of voters opposed increases in state sales and 80 percent rejected higher gasoline taxes.

“Each year in the United States, smoking-caused disease results in $96 billion in health care costs, much of which is paid by taxpayers through higher insurance premiums and government-funded health programs such as Medicaid,” the report argues

“Indeed, higher Medicaid costs are one of the reasons states are facing budget difficulties.”

The average state cigarette tax is $1.34 per pack, ranging from 7 cents a pack in tobacco-growing South Carolina to $3.46 in Rhode Island.

The World Health Organization says tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death globally, killing more than 5 million people each year from heart disease, cancer and lung disease. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 20 percent of U.S. adults smoke.

Source: Reuters (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

The Public Safety Committee voted 4-3 to approve AB 390 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), who said the bill would provide tax revenue to the state and regulation of the drug. The new law includes a requirement that users be at least 21 years old.

The measure next goes to the Health Committee, but proponents worried it would not be acted on by that panel by Friday’s deadline, which would require the proposal to be reintroduced to be heard this year by the full Assembly.
“The way it exists now is harming our youth,” Ammiano said. “Drug dealers do not ask for ID. We need to regulate something that has gone chaotic, has resulted in carnage. I understand it’s not everybody’s cup of tea.”

Assemblyman Danny Gilmore (R-Hanford), a former CHP commander, said the $50 tax on each ounce of marijuana sold to pay for drug education and treatment is not worth the grief that will be caused by legalization.

“We’re going to legalize marijuana, we’re going to tax it and then we’re going to educate our kids about the harm of drugs. You’ve got to be kidding me,” Gilmore said. “What’s next? Are we going to legalize methamphetamines, cocaine?”

The measure was opposed in testimony today by several police chiefs and law enforcement officials including Bob Cooke, former president of the California Narcotics Officers Assn., who predicted it would lead to an increase in crime. “The mere consideration of an attempt to trade human misery for tax dollars smacks of the cynical throwing away of countless human beings,” Cooke told the committee.

It is estimated that the bill would generate $1.3 billion a year in taxes and marijuana cultivation fees.

–Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento

via: LA Times Blog

He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately.

Reids is basically saying that Obama is amazing because “He speaks so well and doesn’t look that black.”

Reid has since apologized after the story gained the attention of the main stream media. “I regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments.”

The democrats have been quick to play down his remarks but for Reid, trailing in polls, this loss of credibility could not have come at a worse time. President Obama relies heavily on him to try to pass the massive health care overhaul bill.

(HuffPo) Incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals means the more than 18,000 felons behind bars in the state could get back their right to vote – without having to wait until they are released from prison and are no longer on probation or parole. The ruling also could open the door to similar lawsuits in the 9th Circuit’s eight other states and two territories.

The issues it raises about racial bias in the justice system are not unique to Washington, said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., group promoting sentencing reform.

“They are issues that permeate the justice system and are relevant in every state,” he said, adding that an estimated 5.3 million people nationwide are ineligible to vote because of felony convictions.

The panel’s ruling overturned a 2000 decision by a district judge in Spokane. That judge had found that Washington’s felon disenfranchisement law didn’t violate the Voting Rights Act, and had dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.

The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state’s justice system “cannot be explained in race-neutral ways.”

Of the more than 18,000 felons in state custody in Washington who could get back their right to vote, 37.1 percent are minorities. Of that group, blacks make up the largest percentage, at 19.2 percent.

Tuesday’s ruling affects only Washington state but could be the basis for litigation in any area covered by the 9th Circuit – Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas, said Janelle Guthrie, spokeswoman for Attorney General Rob McKenna.

Guthrie said McKenna is weighing the state’s next step. It could either ask a larger group of judges from the 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court, she said. If it appeals, the state likely would seek a stay on inmates’ ability to vote until the case is resolved.

A policy director with a conservative think tank in Washington state called the ruling “an embarrassment.”

“It flies in the face of precedent,” said Trent England of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “Not only is felon disenfranchisement constitutional, but it’s good policy. People who commit the most heinous crimes should be deprived of their voice in our system of government at least for a time.”

The lawsuit was filed in 1996 by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, who was serving a three-year sentence at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla for a series of felony-theft convictions at the time.

Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities. That violates the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, the lawsuit said.

Farrakhan’s lead attorney, Gonzaga University School of Law professor Larry Weiser, equated some disenfranchisement laws to poll taxes and literacy tests of the past. He said Washington state’s criminal justice system “is biased against African-Americans, and the impact has been a violation of their voting rights.”

The state argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because the law was not intended to discriminate against minorities.

Washington’s head elections official, Secretary of State Sam Reed, supports minority rights but believes it is a “rational and reasonable sanction for society to demand that felons lose their voting rights while in prison or under community supervision,” spokesman David Ammons said.

Last year, lawmakers passed a law that allows convicted felons to reregister to vote once they’re no longer on parole or probation. Previously, felons who were no longer in Washington state custody but owed court-ordered fines and restitution were barred from voting. The new law that took effect in July removes the requirement that felons must pay off all their debts before their rights are restored. However, felons’ voting rights could be revoked if they fail to make regular payments on their legal obligations.

Other states and the District of Columbia have varying restrictions on restoring felons’ voting rights. Washington’s neighbor, Oregon, automatically returns voting rights to felons once they’re released from prison.

Maine and Vermont are the only states that allow those behind bars to cast ballots.

In her dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown wrote that the majority “has charted territory that none of our sister circuits has dared to explore.” She noted that three other appellate courts – the 1st Circuit in a Massachusetts case, the 2nd Circuit in a New York case, and the 11th Circuit in a Florida case – “have all determined that vote denial challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws are not cognizable under the Voting Rights Act.”

Felon voters were central to a Republican court challenge to the results of Washington state’s 2004 gubernatorial race. The challenge focused heavily on votes cast by felons who hadn’t had their rights restored. Gov. Chris Gregoire beat Republican Dino Rossi by 133 votes after two recounts and the unsuccessful court challenge.

___

The case is Farrakhan v. Gregoire.

via: Huffington Post

One thing that is missing here, is that we never question what is the motive. He said why he did it. We bombed Yemen two weeks ago. That was his motive.

Osama bin Laden said that he has a plan for America. First he wants to bog us down in the middle east in a no win war. He wants to bankrupt this country, demoralize us as well have us do things that motivate people to join his radical movement.

It seems like we have fallen into his trap. Why is it off base today, when the gentlemen indicated that he did it because of the bombing. The administration completely dismissed it.

If you dismiss motivations for why they hate us, then we can never resolve this.

We are foolish not to take that into consideration.

Paul’s logic fell on deaf ears, when Ben Stein replied.

“I’ve never heard anything like that in my whole life.”

If these terrorists are dying to kill the government of Yemen. We’ve got to help them, they’re our friends.

We can’t just let Al Qaeda run wild. They’re terrorists and murders and their very anti American.

They’re terrorists and murder’s because they’re psychos. We’re not the occupiers, that’s the same anti-semetic argument we’ve heard over and over.

The only thing psychotic about this were the words coming out of Ben Steins mouth. Ben Stein and other neo-conservatives have been pushing for escalation of the war in middle east since before Bush left office. Their end goal would be to invade Iran.

In response to this altercation Ron Paul has officially challenged Ben Stein to a formal debate. Ben Stein has yet to respond to the challenge.

Contact Mrs. Marcia Hurwitz Ben’s personal agent to urge Ben Stein to participate in an open debate.

She can be reached at 310-656-5171 and MARCIA@IALA.COM

Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana Drunk on the US Senate Floor debating National health Care

Security guards went into action and dealt with Kokesh’s banner; an irritated crowd of Republicans chanted “USA” until the banner was removed. McCain moved right on, but Kokesh hadn’t finished yet.

“I’m grateful to the president of the United States for leading us in these dark days following the worst attack in American history,” said McCain.

“Ask McCain why he votes against veterans!” shouted Kokesh.

He didn’t get another chance to rain on McCain’s parade, but Kokesh remained proud of what he did. A video that cut together the interruption with jokes, subtitles, and a pounding soundtrack went up on Kokesh’s YouTube account. It’s still there, even though Kokesh’s relationship to the Republican Party is very different now. He’s a candidate for Congress in New Mexico’s 3rd district, looking like the Republican front-runner just one short year after he crashed the convention. Over the course of a year, he’s made the move from confrontation-seeking anti-war activist to clean-cut politician in the mold of the man he supported in 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

“The ground has really shifted away from the neocon agenda,” Kokesh told TWI during a break in his campaign schedule. “There was no influx of young people getting into the Republican Party to support John McCain. By contrast, Ron Paul brought a huge number of young people into the Republican Party. It’s really exciting to see that happening again with my campaign.”

Kokesh’s move into electoral politics–he is 27 years old, and this is his first stab at campaigning–unifies two trends that have made the GOP that will fight the midterm elections dramatically different than the one Kokesh used to protest. The first is the rise of Ron Paul’s libertarianism. After years of obscurity, Paul came out of the 2008 elections with a national fundraising base and new respect for his ideas about war and economics among Republican activists and voters. The second trend is the Tea Party movement. After feeling ignored by George W. Bush’s Republicans, the conservative base has come together to demand commitment to the Constitution, commitment to small government values, and guarantees of national and state sovereignty.

“He never had an official role in the campaign, but we could count on him to energize people,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman. Kokesh was a late edition to Paul’s 2008 “Rally for the Republic,” an event meant to “bring the Republican Party back to its roots” held in Minneapolis before McCain’s address to the RNC in 2008.

“I’d like to think that this symbolizes some good old-fashioned traditional conservatism making a comeback in the GOP,” said Benton. “Republicans have seen that running as the ‘war party’ is a loser for them.”

Today, Kokesh argues that the efforts of Paul supporters look more or less successful. Bush-era “neocons” are out of the political mainstream, replaced by people like him. “Our nation is drifting dangerously from freedom to fascism,” Kokesh said at a July 2008 rally for Paul in Washington, D.C.; at a 2007 Senate hearing, he was photographed holding up a tally of how many times then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had said “I don’t recall.” But rhetoric that sounded out of the mainstream that year sounds perfectly in line with the comments of Republicans like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) or Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and criticism of the GOP or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer controversial in the party’s grassroots.

“If you want to compare to Washington, yes, I’m a radical extremist,” Kokesh told TWI. “If you want to compare me to normal American values, I’m right in the middle of the road. I’m finding out that the grassroots of both parties are so grossly misrepresented by their representatives in Washington that we have more in common with each other.”

Depending on who’s analyzing the race, New Mexico’s third district is either an ideal or a poorly chosen battlefield for a candidate like Kokesh. It’s the most Democratic-leaning district in the state, having given 61 percent of the vote to the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), the freshman that Kokesh wants to challenge, won his election by 27 points, spending $1.5 million to fend off a Republican who spent only $190,000. One Democratic insider labeled Kokesh as an interesting candidate with an interesting strategy and no chance to win.

Read More: Washington Independent

The ceiling was set at $12.104 trillion dollars. The latest posting by Treasury shows the National Debt at nearly $12.135 trillion.

A senior Treasury official told CBS News that the department has some “extraordinary accounting tools” it can use to give the government breathing room in the range of $150-billion when the Debt exceeds the Debt Ceiling.

Were it not for those “tools,” the U.S. Government would not have the statutory authority to borrow any more money. It might block issuance of Social Security checks and require a shutdown of some parts of the federal government.

Pending in Congress is a measure to increase the Debt Limit by $290 billion, which amounts to six more weeks of routine borrowing for the federal government. (The House just passed the increase, though the Senate has yet to act. It is expected to approve the measure.)

Republicans and conservative Democrats blocked moves by House leaders to pass a $1.8 trillion dollar increase in the Debt Limit so the Democratic majority would not have to face the embarrassment of raising the Debt Limit yet again before next November’s midterm elections.

The Debt Limit has been raised about a hundred times since 1940, when it was $49 billion – about five days worth of federal spending now.

The White House projects a record $1.5 trillion dollars deficit this year alone, and a 5-year deficit total of $4.97 trillion.

The Debt figure goes up and down on a daily basis based on government borrowing and revenue. Technically, not all of the National Debt is subject to the Debt Limit – a small percentage is exempt.

CBS News

Instead of “employer’s” say “Big Corporations”

Instead of “anti-union” say “anti-worker”

Instead of “Our union is behind this bill” say “Working people are urging this bill”

Karl Marx would be proud of the SEIU

SEIU EFCA Tip Sheet_Page_2 PDF –

Reps. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced a bill late Thursday night that would freeze the automatic cost of living increase for Members in 2011, citing the ailing economy.

“With unemployment high and so many families struggling to make ends meet, it is unconscionable to think that Congress is considering giving itself a pay raise,” said Mitchell in a statement.

Congress froze 2010 automatic pay increase earlier this year, after more than a dozen lawmakers, including Mitchell and Paul, had put forward legislation similar to the bill introduced this week.

“Turning down our automatic pay increase is the least Congress could do to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and solidarity with our constituents in these tough economic times,” said Paul in a statement on Friday. “Much more needs to be done to reduce the size and expense of government, but passing this legislation would be a start.”

Congress has abided by a process approved in 1989, which stipulates that lawmakers will automatically receive a cost of living pay increase every January unless members vote specifically to reject the raise – a politically precarious position.

A Republican and Democrat have put forward legislation that would rescind the automatic pay increase lawmakers are slated to receive in 2011.

Reps. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced a bill late Thursday night that would freeze the automatic cost of living increase for Members in 2011, citing the ailing economy.

“With unemployment high and so many families struggling to make ends meet, it is unconscionable to think that Congress is considering giving itself a pay raise,” said Mitchell in a statement.

Congress froze 2010 automatic pay increase earlier this year, after more than a dozen lawmakers, including Mitchell and Paul, had put forward legislation similar to the bill introduced this week.

“Turning down our automatic pay increase is the least Congress could do to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and solidarity with our constituents in these tough economic times,” said Paul in a statement on Friday. “Much more needs to be done to reduce the size and expense of government, but passing this legislation would be a start.”

Congress has abided by a process approved in 1989, which stipulates that lawmakers will automatically receive a cost of living pay increase every January unless members vote specifically to reject the raise – a politically precarious position.

The Hill

The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.