Count Prisoners Where They Can Vote

I am in support of HR 3645 and S 3481, Correct the Census and count prisoners where they can vote.

Since the first U.S. census in 1790, the federal government has included incarcerated people in the population counts of where they're imprisoned.

The policy of counting prisoners were they are housed is outdated.

The census is designed to provide fair and equitable representation.

Prison is to be for the temporary incarceration and then returned to their home district.

If a person is counted for a district that he can not vote in, he has no representation.

Prisoners should be counted where their home is or their last address.

Morris Hagerman

Democratic Delegate for Royal Oak, Michigan's 21st District

Of Note:

Andy Lenin

Debbie Stabenow

Gary Peters

The Lincoln Project Response to DOJ Involvement in Roger Stone Sentencing

A post from the Lincoln Project:

WASHINGTON, DC US, February 12, 2020 – Today, The Lincoln Project released the following statement:

Yesterday’s decision by the Justice Department to overrule the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation on convicted felon Roger Stone, is a blatant example of political interference, retaliation, and coercion by an emboldened, unbowed President.

“Attorney General Barr’s subservience to Trump is both cowardly and damaging to the country,” said Jennifer Horn, spokesperson for The Lincoln Project. “It is obvious that Barr is overriding the best judgment of Justice Department professionals to appease an angry, vindictive president. Clearly, the President feels emboldened by his acquittal in the Senate and is now set on expanding his criminal enterprise approach to the Presidency and Attorney General Barr is aiding and abetting him in that effort.

The Department of Justice is intended to be an independent, neutral agency of justice in this country, free of political influence, assuring that all are treated equally under the law, not used as an enforcer for a wannabe strongman president. Barr’s actions, in this case, set a dangerous precedent and should alarm all Americans.”

Source:

https://lincolnproject.us/news/doj-roger-stone/ 

Trump is Reducing Clean Water Protection in the United States

Position Overview

The EPA is withdrawing from the 2015 Rule that manages American water ways which reduces the amount of water (water ways) that the agency governs.  

This action is being taken because of Executive Order linked below.

Water is only second to clean air as the most important resource on earth.

Every living thing on earth depends on clean water.  It is necessary to life and to a safe and healthy environment.

It is the responsibility of all people and governments to maintain a healthy environment.

Water, no matter where it is, needs to be kept clean, safe and natural.

The EPA should be in the lead on protecting clean water and not withdrawing from protecting United States waterways.

The EPA needs to expand clean water protections by not only maintaining the 2015 Rule but expand the EPA's regulatory protection to all water in the United States.

https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/documents-associated-2015-clean-water-rule 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Rule 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-restoring-rule-law-federalism-economic-growth-reviewing-waters-united-states-rule/ 

Trump is Meting Out Retribution to New York for the Green Light NY Program

Trump is denying the Trusted Traveler Program to residents of New York because they instituted the Green Light Program.

The Trusted Traveler program is a program established by DHS to pre check and clear travelers that frequently fly.

The Green Light Program is a New York program that provides driver's licenses to all residents regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.

Application for the Trusted Traveler Program does not require a driver's license; passport or proof of resident is all that is needed.

Since the Trusted Traveler program doesn't require a driver's license, it appears that the Trump Administration is meting out retribution for the Green Light Program.

Trump continues to wield the power of the Executive Branch well beyond the authority that the Constitution, Congress or the courts have allowed.

Trump in this case, has no authority to issue the suspension of the Trusted Traveler Program to the residents of New York.

                        

DHS Trusted Traveler Program

https://ttp.dhs.gov/ 

Green Light NY Program

https://greenlightnewyork.org/

DHS suspends Global Entry, Trusted Traveler Programs for New York residents in response to sanctuary law. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-global-entry-trusted-traveler-new-york-ice-sanctuary-law

“Stop Giving Big Oil Free Money Act”

“Stop Giving Big Oil Free Money Act” would end a loophole that allowed oil and gas companies to avoid paying $18 billion.

Should a 1995 financial break to incentivize offshore drilling remain 24 years later?

Responsible Community’s Position:

With huge deficits at the Federal level, we are not able to afford continued tax breaks that aren’t necessary.

The United States now has excess oil production.

The temporary reprieves that were intended to be in the act were “accidentally” omitted, so the reprieves should be removed.

Oil company profits for 2018 (latest available) was $28 billion, they hardly need incentive to drill for oil.

This bill should be supported in both the House (H.R. 5186) and the Senate (S 2906).

Context

The Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 — part of a larger 1995 law dealing with energy production — attempted to spur oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, by offering companies temporary reprieves from the 12% royalty they were supposed to pay on the produced oil.

However, a clause supported across the aisle — which would have instituted the royalty payments if oil and gas prices exceeded a certain level — was accidentally omitted. Those price thresholds were exceeded years ago. Since then about $18 billion in would-be royalties were never paid.

What the legislation does

The Stop Giving Big Oil Free Money Act would close this quarter-century-old loophole, by banning the Interior Department from issuing any new offshore drilling lease to a company which already holds a royalty-free lease.

The ban would only be lifted for a company if they negotiate their existing lease to a new price threshold, presumably to begin paying royalties on it.

The House version was introduced on November 20 as bill number H.R. 5186, by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ3). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 2906, by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

What supporters say

Supporters argue the legislation closes a loophole that neither party intended nor would have supported at the time.

“This money belongs to the American people, and some of the most profitable companies in the world are keeping it for themselves because they think they’re entitled to it,” Rep. Grijalva said in a press release. “This money should be building roads and providing health care for veterans. We have to decide once and for all whether the public or fossil fuel corporations really own our lands and waters.”

“Big Oil gets handout after handout straight from the pockets of the American people, all to fuel our fossil fuel addiction that is driving the climate crisis,” Sen. Markey said in the same press release. “It’s time to stop treating oil and gas companies like tax royalty and close this free drilling loophole once and for all.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the status quo provided a huge boost to the energy industry, to the point that the U.S. is now almost completely self-sufficient for energy.

The original 1995 law “was a bipartisan program signed into law by President Clinton that jumpstarted the U.S. offshore oil and natural gas industry,” National Ocean Industries Association President Erik Milito said in a statement.

“Between 2000 and 2018, a stronger U.S. offshore industry generated more than $122 billion for the Federal government through high bids, royalties and rents and helped unlock a higher quality of life through affordable and reliable energy,” Milito continued.

“Instead of sending jobs, economic growth and energy security abroad, Washington, D.C. policymakers should find new solutions that help America remain the offshore energy leader.”

Odds of passage

The House version has attracted one Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA47). It awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources Committee, where Rep. Lowenthal is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, making a vote there likely.

The Senate version has not yet attracted any cosponsors. It awaits a potential vote in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.

This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.

Links

https://govtrackinsider.com/stop-giving-big-oil-free-money-act-would-end-a-loophole-that-allowed-oil-and-gas-companies-to-d7dcfcc9eefc

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5186

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s2906

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/edward_markey/400253

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/raul_grijalva/400162

Ban Corporate PACs

Here is a posting from GovTrack about H.R. 5129 2019.  I fully support it.  Corporations have no business in the political arena. 

Ban Corporate PACs Act would do just that.

GovTrack.us

Follow

Dec 13 · 3 min read

Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11)

Should corporate money be removed from politics, or is it a necessary component of free speech?

Context

Some corporations set up or fund affiliated organizations called Political Action Committees, or PACs, to fund advertisements and other expenditures intended to influence political or policy outcomes.

For last year’s midterm elections, 1,732 corporate PACs spent $404.8 million. That’s more than for any of the other biggest PAC categories: labor, trade, membership, or cooperative. Democrats decry this corporate money as corrupting.

Others note that corporate PACs are already limited in their potential and scope, since their $5,000 donation cap to an individual candidate has remained unchanged since 1974. (So-called “super PACs,” created by the Supreme Court’s 2010 deregulatory decision Citizens United v. FEC, have no such monetary limits. Corporations can contribute to super PACs and this bill doesn’t appear to affect that.)

What the bill does

The Ban Corporate PACs Act would fulfill its title, by eliminating the ability of for-profit companies or corporations to fund an organization intended to influence policy. The bill would also eliminate any existing corporate PACs within one year.

It was introduced in the House on November 15 as bill number H.R. 5129, by Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that corporate money influences election and policy outcomes, when the only variable should be the will of the American voters.

“Corporate PACs flood this city with contributions, but it’s not the American people’s priorities they have in mind — it’s their own bottom lines,” Rep. Rose said in a press release. “That’s wrong and at the root of Washington corruption. That’s why we must send a clear, unmistakable message to the American people that we are here to fight for them and only them — not the special interests and corporate PACs.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the fear of corporate money in politics is overblown, and indeed that it’s a protected right as a subset of the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

“It’s not corporate money or campaign donations that help keep incumbency rates high,” Ed Krayewski wrote for Reason. “Through earmarks and other legislative means, members of Congress can direct federal funds to their districts. The longer they’re in office, the better they get at bringing funds to their district, the more likely constituents are to vote to re-elect their representative whether they agree with his politics or not, simply because the legislator brings home the bacon.”

“Taxpayer money in politics seems a lot more corrosive than corporate money,” Krayewski continued. “Politicians have effectively unlimited access to use taxpayer money in order to enrich themselves and ingratiate themselves with their constituents.”

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted four House cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Administration Committee.

Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate.

It is my belief I must clearly make a statement about my goal in staging protests and what lines I will not cross.

I will not harm anyone.

I will not destroy or deface property that isn't mine.

I will not carry a weapon at anytime during my protests.

I will not store weapons in car.

I will not aide anyone that is destroying property or injuring someone.

I will respect police and other authorities that are doing their duty.

I will not resist arrest or temporary restraint by authorities.

I will not conspire with anyone about breaking any law or injuring anyone.

I will follow all laws that I am aware of.

I will ask what crime I am committing when authorities try to intimidated me.

I will in direr moments, when I can, send a message for my family and friends that I am under restraint or arrest.

I will in direr moments, when I can, send a message to my family and friends that I am about to be or have been injured.

I will act alone with no one else's knowledge about my activities, unless I am in a group that has made their plans in advance.

I will not act with a spontaneously group that has gathered to protest or challenge evidence currently unfolding in front of me.

I will not interfere with police or other authoritative action in an illegal manner.

I will be as open as possible about my activities.

I will not implicate others that may have acted on their own unless they broke the law, then I will be open about their personal activities only.

I will not associate with anyone that is either planning to brake the law or spontaneously braking any law that I am aware of.

If arrested, I will ask for a lawyer and demand one until I have one.