Yelling At The TV

April 24, 2013 - Hal Rogers, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee claims that the FAA never mentioned having to furlough air traffic controllers before it happened.

This mirrors the claim made by another Kentucky Republican in the Senate the day before.

Perhaps they should pay better attention.

From the Statement of FAA Administrator Michael Huerta to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Aviation:

The sequester is looming, and massive budget cuts are set to go into effect just two days from now.

I want to make a clear distinction about how sequestration differs from previous government shutdowns that have been caused by failure to pass a budget, or by the temporary lapse in our authorization in July 2011.

First, almost all of our FAA accounts would be affected. Therefore, this would affect almost all of our employees.

We are looking at all options to reduce costs. We’re looking at a hiring freeze, and at cutting contracts and travel and other items not related to day-to-day operations. But, to reach the large figure we need to cut, we have little choice but to make up the rest through furloughing employees. This is not something that we take lightly.

Unlike a government shutdown, under the sequester, almost all of our employees would be affected, even what we would traditionally call “essential personnel.” The vast majority of our employees, including “essential workers” would have to be furloughed.

Under sequestration our flexibility is very limited because we must cut proportionately from all affected accounts. We can’t move money around and we have limited flexibility to choose what it is that we’re able to cut.

Now a very large portion of the DOT’s budget is exempt from the sequester. What this means is that the FAA will take more than 60 percent of the sequester cuts for all of the DOT, even though our agency makes up only about 20 percent of the department’s budget. Now, within the FAA, the airport grant program also is exempt from the sequester. So this again limits the choices we have on where to cut the money.

Finally, we have a very short time frame to make the bulk of these massive cuts—about six months. And that means the cuts would need to be deeper to have the same effect as if we could spread them out.

Having spent over a year at school in Kentucky, and having known many Kentuckians in my life, I can safely assert that this attention deficit afflicion is not common to all the people of the state. So what’s wrong with these two?

April 23, 2013 - Mitch McConnell accuses the Obama administration of “hiding the ball” from the “traveling public” on FAA furloughs.

He claims that the FAA Administrator didn’t mention the furloughs in his testimony before Senate Committees last week.

From the Statement of FAA Administrator Michael Huerta to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, April 16, 2013: 

I want to emphasize that as we undergo the difficult process of implementing the deep cuts required by the sequester, we refuse to sacrifice safety—even if this means less efficient operations.

In addition to contract towers, large facilities will also be affected. To reach the figure we need to cut from our payroll—which is our largest operating cost—we have to furlough 47,000 of our employees for up to 11 days between now and September.

The furloughs will reduce controller work hours at all airports with towers, but also at radar facilities across the country. Again, safety is our number one concern. We will only allow the amount of air traffic that we can handle safely to take off and land. This means travelers should expect delays. Today we are meeting with air carriers to go over specific operational impacts related to the furloughs facility by facility.

From the Statement of FAA Administrator Michael Huerta to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, April 18, 2013:

The cuts required by the sequester have forced us to slash contract expenses and furlough 47,000 of our employees. With employees working fewer hours, we will have less efficient air traffic operations and less time for safety inspectors to certify new aircraft for the market.

Is Mitch McConnell spending so much time trying to score political points that he isn’t paying attention to what is actually being said in these hearings, or is he lying to the American people by accusing the Obama administration of “hiding the ball?”

That seems like a fair question.

March 7, 2013 - While expressing his opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban, Senator John Cornyn says that mental illness is the common element in all of the recent shooting rampages. He says he wants to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

On June 4, 2008, Senator Cornyn released this statement:

As more and more of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are being diagnosed with mental health conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, many others are not reporting their symptoms because of stigmas or worries about the impact such a diagnosis will have on their military careers. As a result, many of our men and women in uniform are not receiving the vital care they need to overcome these conditions.

If Senator Cornyn is really worried about weapons in the hands of the mentally ill, and says that many veterans may have mental illnesses that aren’t reported, why would he offer an amendment to the Assault Weapons Ban to exempt veterans?

Which is more likely, that Cornyn doesn’t believe that many veterans have unreported mental illnesses or that he doesn’t mind allowing the mentally ill to have weapons?

March 14, 2013 - Senator Ted Cruz, in the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on a bill to ban assault weapons, talks about his familiarity with the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case.

He argues that a ban on assault weapons would be unconstitutional under the Heller decision. Interestingly, during the Heller case he argued exactly the opposite.

The first paragraph of the amici brief filed by Ted Cruz:

Amici, the State of Texas and 30 other States, have an interest in this case because of its potential impact on their citizens’ constitutional rights. The individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the United States Constitution and the constitutions of forty-four States. (1) Given the significance of this fundamental right, the States have a substantial interest in ensuring that the Second Amendment is accorded its proper scope.

The footnote:

(1) Amici States have attached an Appendix outlining the relevant state constitutional and statutory provisions concerning firearms.

The Appendix is mentioned again on page 36:

It bears emphasis that amici States likewise have a strong interest in maintaining the many state laws prohibiting felons in possession, restricting machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and the like. See Appendix.

But all 31 amici States agree that striking down the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on all operative firearms would pose no threat to these reasonable regulations.

The Appendix of Ted Cruz’s brief, previously referenced as a list of examples of States protecting the second amendment, and again as “reasonable regulations” includes these listings:

CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53-202(b), (c) (assault weapons); 53a-211 (sawed-off shotguns and rifles)

MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 140, § 131M (assault weapons)

N.Y. PENAL LAW § 265.02 (machine guns, “assault weapons”)

Now Ted Cruz claims that his own examples of States’ “reasonable regulations” that protect the 2nd Amendment during the Heller case would be unconstitutional because of the Heller case.

Would that argument hold up in court?

February 26, 2013 - On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, GA Congressman Jack Kingston urged the Senate to take up the sequester bill that the House  passed in December…even though it no longer exists.

Jack Kingston has been in Congress since 1993, he should understand the basics of lawmaking by now, shouldn’t he?

For instance: When a new Congress begins, bills from the last Congress don’t carry over.

There is no longer a bill for the Senate to “take up.” Asking the Senate to “take up” a nonexistent bill is idiotic. Pass something in this Congress, then complain about the Senate.

Rep. Tom Price thinks the sequester is necessary to “get this economy rolling again.” 

According to information from the White House, If sequestration were to take effect, some examples of the impacts on Georgia this year alone are: 

• Teachers and Schools: Georgia will lose approximately $28.6 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 390 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 54,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 80 fewer schools would receive funding.
• Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Georgia will lose approximately $17.5 million in funds for about 210 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities. 
• Work-Study Jobs: Around 2,490 fewer low income students in Georgia would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 890 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college. 
• Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 1,700 children in Georgia, reducing access to critical early education.
• Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Georgia would lose about $3.5 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Georgia could lose another $979,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.
• Military Readiness: In Georgia, approximately 37,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $190.1 million in total.
• Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $233 million in Georgia. 
• Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Georgia would be cut by about $5 million. 
• Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Georgia will lose about $427,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives. 
• Job Search Assistance to Help those in Georgia find Employment and Training: Georgia will lose about $873,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 33,160 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment. 
• Child Care: Up to 1,100 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.  
• Vaccines for Children: In Georgia around 4,180 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $286,000.
• Public Health: Georgia will lose approximately $925,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Georgia will lose about $2.5 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2400 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And Georgia health departments will lose about $571,000 resulting in around 14,300 fewer HIV tests.  
• STOP Violence Against Women Program: Georgia could lose up to $208,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 800 fewer victims being served.  
• Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Georgia would lose approximately $1.3 million in funds that provide meals for seniors.

Which of the these will be good for Georgia’s economy?

Ask Tom Price.

• DC Office: 202-225-4501
• District Office: 770-998-0049
• Contact by email