Tag Archives: Senator Dean Heller

559 Questions for Senator Dean Heller

On June 18, 2018 Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) was pleased to let us all know he had taken a baby step away from the Trumpian child separation policy at the US – Mexico border:

“Senator Heller doesn’t support separating children from their families, and he believes that this issue highlights just how broken our immigration system is and why Congress must act to fix it.” [LVRJ]

As of August 9, 2018 Time reports there are still 559 migrant children (of an original 2,551) who have not yet been reunited with their parents. 386 parents have already been deported.  There are 26 parents for which the government says it has no information at all.  The authorities say they’ve heard from 299 parents in the previous week.  As of August 9, 2018 the Trump mis-administration still had no plan in place to reunite children with their parents.

Then, on August 10th NPR reports:

“More than 360 immigrant children in U.S. custody are still separated from parents who were deported by the U.S. government. About 200 immigrant children are still without their parents for other reasons. This afternoon, the government presented its plan to San Diego federal judge Dana Sabraw about how to reunify deported parents with their children. Part of that plan includes a heavy lift for the ACLU, which brought the case to reunify the families.”

Wait a minute. Why is the “heavy lift” assigned to the American Civil Liberties Union?  Simple, the administration wanted to make the ACLU assume the burden of proof that the parents really wanted their children back.  The ACLU responded:

“…they say that the parents who have been deported were either confused or in some cases coerced, tricked into agreeing to deportation because they believed that meant they’d be reunified with their kids. And the ACLU has consistently pointed to the fact that, you know, in large part, the government has really – they’ve had to have been ordered for most of this to be able to act. The government really hasn’t done much willingly. But the ACLU is also privately acknowledging at this point that they also need to talk to these parents individually. And they recognize that they’re going to be part of this solution to reunify these parents.” [NPR]

Focus: The administration officials haven’t done much. They’ve had to be forced to do what little they have done, and now they want the burden shifted to the attorneys for the plaintiffs… I haven’t been to law school, however, this sounds more than a little like the southbound product of my ever faithful metaphorical northbound bull.

Meanwhile back on July 25, 2018 Senator Heller spoke on the Senate Floor about the separation policy:

Heller said on the Senate floor today that he’d heard concerns from more than 3,500 constituents over the family separations. Thousands of children, some still in diapers, have been separated from their family members as a result of the Trump policy.

“My constituents have spoken to families split apart at the borders and some are being held in Southern Nevada,” he said. “And they are, frankly, asking for help. So being reunified with their children is their top priority.” [LVSun]

It doesn’t seem to have been a top priority for the administration.  August 10th was also the day the federal authorities finally announced they had a “plan,” or at least the outline of a plan. [MJ]  That would be one day after it was reported that ICE withheld phone numbers of deported parents from the ACLU attorneys. [HuffPo]

We have three touch points here, and for the sake of clarity let’s note that on the first touch point, June 18th, Senator Heller is his usual vague self — the policy is bad and Congress should fix it.  Nothing more specific is on offer.  By the second touch point, July 25th, Senator Heller has signed on to some legislation which purports to “solve the problem.”  It doesn’t address the general issue of immigration reform, and frankly does little beyond repeat the protections of the Constitution already in place — children should not be separated from parents during the administrative and/or legal review of their cases.  Finally, the court ordered plan (or at least the outline of the government’s plan, by August 10th obviates the need for Senator Heller’s showcase bit of legislative co-sponsorship.  Courts have ordered what the Senate couldn’t get around to doing, i.e. ordering the administration not to separate children and parents, and not to remove them (especially out of the country) during the adjudication of their cases.

Return with us now to another touch point.  It is June 27, 2013 and the US Senate has just passed a compromise Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.  The measure included:

The Gang of Eight bill would essentially revamp every corner of U.S. immigration law, establishing a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, with several security benchmarks that have to be met before they can obtain a green card. The measure would not only increases security along the border, but requires a mandatory workplace verification system for employers, trying to ensure no jobs are given to immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States.  It also includes a new visa program for lesser-skilled workers – the product of negotiations between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions. And it shifts the country’s immigration policies away from a family-based system to one that is focused on more on work skills.

Sound familiar?  The 2013 bill had many of the features still under consideration today, and Senator Heller was a “yes” vote on the comprehensive bill on June 27, 2013. Thus it seems fair to ask, if the Senator held a favorable view of the 2013 bill then why has he not encouraged, sponsored, co-sponsored, or promoted an updated version since?  Instead, Heller charges that comprehensive immigration reform isn’t possible because Democrats don’t want immigrants to work. [TP]

In an audio recording of a March 2 speech, obtained by Politico and released Friday, Heller claimed that no progress can be made on immigration reform for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. “Republicans want illegal immigrants to work but not vote. Democrats want them not to work, but to vote. Think about that for a minute,” he told the audience. “That’s why we can’t come together on a solution for this.”

This statement is demonstrably false.

Well, we could “think about that for a minute,” and reach the same conclusion.  Senator Heller is playing to the Trumpian audience.  The statement is, in fact, demonstrably false; but useful as part of a dog-whistle/bull horn/fire siren stump speech to the faithful.

Here is where the incumbent Senator gets himself entangled in his own rhetoric.  It’s hard to generate sympathy for his protestations concerning the Zero Tolerance/Maximum Pain policy of separating parents and children at the southern border when it’s noted he’s perfectly willing to play the “immigrants as the ignorant tools of corrupt Democrats” card.

It’s also difficult to find any reason for a round of applause for his co-sponsorship of a fairly narrow, and decidedly right wing 2018 version of immigration policy reform, when doesn’t come all that close to what he was willing to support in 2013.   The hard sad fact is that comprehensive immigration reform bills passed the Senate in 2006 and 2013 and failed to find sufficient support among House Republicans to pass them. [Politifact]

We could come to a solution on this if we ignored (or replaced) Senators such as Dean Heller who wish to beat their drums while continuing to blow on their dog whistles, and elected members of the US Congress who would be willing to take up the issue as it was addressed in 2006 and 2013 — and DO something.

 

Comments Off on 559 Questions for Senator Dean Heller

Filed under Immigration, Nevada politics, Politics

Thank You For Your Service, Sort Of…

To all the flag-wavin’, flag-clutchin’, flag-wearin’, flag-supportin’ members of the the GOP,  and this includes senatorial candidate Dean Heller,  here’s some unsolicited advice on how to truly be supportive of our Armed Forces and veterans. Some of these don’t translate well into bumper stickers or shouted slogans, but they just might be more effective.

#1. Let’s start with NOT separating from service members of the military and reservists who happen to be immigrants on a path to citizenship. [USAT]  For crying out loud, these people are VOLUNTEERS.  They have volunteered to place themselves deliberately in harm’s way to protect the safety and security of the rest of us.  Aren’t these exactly the kind of people we want to join us as citizens of these United States?

#2.  Let’s stop creating deportation issues for some 11,800 members of our military families [MilTimes] and let’s stop deporting the spouses of our veterans [NBC].  Where, please, are the voices of our members of the US Senate — yes, Senator Heller, this includes you — and the voices of our Representatives in the House?  And, yes, Rep. Amodei (R-NV2) this means you as well.  Please don’t try to convince me of your love and respect for active duty personnel and veterans while you allow them to worry about the deportation status of their spouses — and the mothers and fathers of their children.

#3.  Let’s start paying members of the military what they are worth rather than beginning the calculation with what we think is the least amount we can pay and still meet budget restrictions. For example, the pay increase for member of the US military for 2017 was 2.1%, and granted that’s above the “austerity years” previously, but the inflation rate for 2017 was also 2.1% so our members of the armed forces didn’t actually get a raise in terms of real purchasing power.  The latest bill includes a 2.6% pay raise. Will this cover inflation rates? [Mil.com] [FedPay] Can I get an “Amen!” from Senator Heller? From Representative Amodei?  I’m not hearing anything…

#4. And, while we are discussing purchasing power… Remember back in April 2018 when the White House floated a proposal to cut SNAP benefits? [Mil.com]  Those cuts would effect members of the US military. [Mil.com]  That argument was still going on as of July 5, 2018. [SanAntonioC] How about we decide not to have this argument at all. How about paying members of the US military enough so SNAP benefits are unnecessary, or if they must be then making sure military families have sufficient resources to put food on their tables? This would seem to be a very supportive thing to advocate? Yes? Senator Heller? Yes? Representative Amodei?

Meanwhile, what’s happening in the current legislation headed to the Oval Office [USNI]  on Basic Housing Allowances? Whenever Senator McConnell says things including the phrase “more opportunity,” I begin to wonder Whose Opportunity to do what.  On Tricare? On dental treatment plans?

In short, let’s stop talking about “thank you for your service,” and “support the troops,” and DO something that allows them to be thankful they joined the US Armed Forces.  If we truly appreciate their service then we ought to be willing to pay for it.

Comments Off on Thank You For Your Service, Sort Of…

Filed under Amodei, Heller, Immigration, Military pay, Nevada politics, No Child Left Behind, Politics

The Unsportsmanlike Act

Duck StampThe Bipartisan Sportsman’s Act of 2014 (S. 2363) sailed through the first cloture roadblock on an 82-12 vote [roll call 218] and then sank in the mire of Senate obstructionism.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled the plug in the face of Republican squabbling over amendments. [The Hill]  What started out as a simple two title bill got entangled in …. Guns.

Title I of the original bill would have allowed hunters to get duck stamps online, and allowed target practice on federal lands, among other improvements for those who truly are into hunting. Title II concerned conservation of various habitats. [S. 2363]  And then things got complicated.

Guns Galore!

Thirty eight amendments were offered to the bill.  Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) wanted to add his “Second Amendment Enforcement Act” to the bill, which would have gutted gun regulations in the District of Columbia, and just about everywhere else for that matter. [CR S4283]  He also proposed allowing firearms in postal facilities. [CR S4283] Nothing like encouraging the customers to, in a phrase from a bygone era, “go postal?”

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) joined Senator Paul in his efforts to add the proposed “Second Amendment Enforcement Act” to the bill, [CR S4283]  and he, too, wanted to extend firearm privileges in postal facilities. Lee’s three amendments essentially proposed the same extensions of Paul’s expansion of gun ‘rights.’

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TX) offered his “Second Amendment Enforcement Act” to the original bill, and Senator Jefferson Beauregard Session (R-Old South) chimed in with his rendition.  Not to be outdone, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wanted a “Second Amendment Enforcement Act included in the three amendments he filed, as did Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Idaho Republican Senator Mike Crapo, Richard Burr (R-NC), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in three amendments, and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), and Nevada’s own Senator Dean Heller.

There’s nothing new about this “Second Amendment Enforcement Act,” it was drafted by the National Rifle Association, and was introduced by Senators McCain (R-GreenRoom) and Tester (D-MT) as a response to gun regulations in the District of Columbia. [OV.com] By the lights of the NRA there shouldn’t be any.  It also showed up in the 110th Congress (2008) in the form of H.R. 6691.  It appeared in Representative Mike Ross’s H.R. 645 in 2011 [NRA] where it died in Committee in February 2011. [GovTrack]

If the fish can’t live in the water, why are you fishing there?

Senator Heller also signed on to Senator Barrasso’s amendment which deviated from the chorus of ‘gun rights’ and headed into the Clean Water Act.  SA 3453 took the regulation out of regulations concerning the identification of waters protected by the Clean Water Act:

“SEC. 1__XX. IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS PROTECTED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
(a) In General.–Neither the Secretary of the Army nor the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall– (1) finalize the proposed rule entitled “Definition of `Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act” (79 Fed. Reg. 22188 (April 21, 2014)); or
(2) use the proposed rule described in paragraph (1), or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance, as the basis for any rulemaking or any decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).  (b) Rules.–The use of the proposed rule described in subsection (a)(1), or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance, as the basis for any rulemaking or any decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) shall be grounds for vacation of the final rule, decision, or enforcement action.”

That’s simple, if the Army and the EPA can’t finalize rules regarding the definition of protected water under the Clean Water Act, there’s no clean water? This unpleasant notion was also put forward by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), and  Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO).

It’s rather difficult to imagine a bill intended to encourage hunting and fishing including a proposal to allow more pollution of hunting and fishing realms. However, several Republican Senators managed to do it.  This “Polluted Waters Act of 2014” didn’t quite mesh with Senator Cardin’s (D-DE) amendment to enact the National Fish Habitat Action Plan.  Nor does it seem particularly appealing to someone like myself who thoroughly enjoys fly fishing — imagine all the fun of standing in a mountain stream watching what gray slime doesn’t attach to the waders float along downstream?

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was disappointed there wasn’t an “amendment process,” [The Hill] but with the “Second Amendment Solutions” attached, and the specter of the Dirty Water Fishing Act of 2014 included, we shouldn’t be too disappointed that this little bill didn’t make it past the Senate Obstruction Machine.

It would have been nice if the hunters could have gotten their duck stamps online…

Comments Off on The Unsportsmanlike Act

Filed under Congress, ecology, Gun Issues, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics

Billionaires 38 – College Students 0

Senators for BillionairesWould it be acceptable if we allowed the refinancing of student loans, if this were paid for by slightly increasing the tax “burden” on billionaires?  Should we even be able to bring the measure to the floor for debate and vote?

According to Senate Republicans, the answer would be no.  The motion to invoke cloture failed and the Senate GOP continues to filibuster the bill.

Comments Off on Billionaires 38 – College Students 0

Filed under education, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans

Heller’s Choice

Heller Yellow Stripe

There are at least 786 federally licensed firearms dealers in Nevada [link] ranging from major franchise retailers to individuals who are licensed sellers.    I’ve also wondered why small sporting goods dealers and retailers aren’t more critical of gun show and Internet sellers who don’t have to run background checks — unless, of course, the licensed gun dealers know that the Internet sellers and gun show folks are taking chances with their customers.  Chances they’d not be willing to take themselves.

This is not to contend that there aren’t a few rather bad actors among the licensed, such as the infamous case of the Las Vegas gun dealer who had prior convictions for domestic abuse and who was operating one of the nation’s largest sources for “Saturday Night Specials” back in 1999.  However, it’s logical to assume that most, if not nearly all, of our gun dealers are functioning within the law, and with acceptable record keeping and background check procedures.   So, if it isn’t an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights to have our federally licensed firearms dealers conduct background checks on prospective buyers, then why would it be an “infringement” for sellers on the Internet or at gun shows?

That said, we have Senator Heller on record saying: “I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”  The usual commentary accompanying this kind of statement is that background checks will only serve to make it more difficult for “law abiding” citizens to secure firearms.  There’s a problem with that statement:  Law abiding citizens can easily go  to one of their licensed gun dealers, pass the background check, and procure a firearm.  So, who would be inconvenienced by a background check?  Perhaps those who don’t think they’d pass one.

Among that less than commendable group of not-so-law-abiding citizens would be (1) felons (2) fugitives (3) minor children (4) the seriously mentally ill, and (5) undocumented aliens.

As of 2010 31,076 Americans died by guns in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. [LCPGV]  2011 statistics show Nevada with 75 murders 58% of them by firearms, about 70 robberies committed by a felon using a firearm, and 53.3 assaults with firearms against individuals. [Guardian]  If nothing else, these numbers should be analyzed as not only policing statistics, but as public health problems as well.

“You should live so long” — deaths by firearm injury nationally are a younger person’s issue.  The CDC reports for injury related deaths (pdf) indicate that in the age group 15-24 gun violence injuries were the second leading cause of death, among those in the nation between the ages of 25 and 34 gun violence injuries were the third leading cause of death.  Thereafter, suicide by firearm moves up the rankings.  For those 35 to 64 suicide by firearms is the third leading cause of injury related deaths.

The health care costs related to gun violence are hard to discern, but they are worth consideration.  One study from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (Miller) found that the average cost of medical care for a gun shot fatality was about $28,700.  When the study combined care for both fatalities and non-fatal firearm injuries the price tag was approximately $3.2 billion for 105,177 deaths and injuries in 2010.  [DFP] [USAT]

The Kaiser Foundation reports that as of 2009 Nevada’s death rate by firearms was 15.5/100K, as compared to a national rating of 10.1/100K.  The death rate for male Nevadans was 26.3/100K compared to a national rate of 17.8/100K.   Death by suicide (source not referenced) was 19.1/100K in 2009 compared to a national rate of 11.8/100K.  [Kaiser]  Nevada’s office of Suicide Prevention reports that as of the end of 2011 firearms were used in 58% of suicides in this state. [OSP pdf]  If we assume that the cost of medical services are somewhere close to the estimated $28,700 average for a fatal injury by firearm, then we’re running up some bills in Nevada for health care which aren’t doing anything positive toward health care cost containment.

These numbers raise questions about Senator Heller’s rationale.  IF the State of Nevada is experiencing a higher than national average of deaths by firearms, especially for men killed by firearm injuries, and if the State is looking at suicide rates (58% of which are by firearms) above the national average, then WHY would we not want to restrict gun sales to those who are willing to go to one of our reputable licensed dealers and undergo the required background check?

At some point we have to ask, why is a mere inconvenience more alarming to Senator Heller than our above average gun injury fatality rates, our above average suicide rate?  While we can estimate the monetary costs of treating gun injuries, we would be more hard pressed to specify the human toll in lost wages, productivity, health care costs, legal costs…and funeral costs involved in firearm fatalities in this State.

Why is it more important to protect the convenience of potential gun purchasers, who may have some very questionable reasons for avoiding a background check by a licensed dealer,  than it is to protect this State from its dismal rankings in terms of gun fatalities?

1 Comment

Filed under Gun Issues, Heller

Passing VAWA…again

VAWAS. 47, the Senate bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 59 co-sponsors, including Nevada Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Dean Heller (R-NV).  Votes are expected sometime after 2:00 pm (Eastern) this Tuesday.

Title IX, section 204 is of particular interest to Native American victims of domestic violence.

“(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to all powers of self-government recognized and affirmed by sections 201 and 203, the powers of self-government of a participating tribe include the inherent power of that tribe, which is hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons. (2) CONCURRENT JURISDICTION- The exercise of special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction by a participating tribe shall be concurrent with the jurisdiction of the United States, of a State, or of both.”

There are two exceptions to this jurisdictional framework: If the persons involved are not Native Americans, or if the defendant has no ties to the tribe.

This version of the bill has been modified since the last session:

“The Senate version has been tweaked from the version considered last year, with sponsors scuttling a provision on law-enforcement visas given to undocumented immigrants who’ve been the victim of domestic violence. Democrats did this for procedural reasons — it gives the House fewer excuses to ignore the bill — and expect to address this in a comprehensive immigration reform bill, so the issue isn’t being dropped altogether.

VAWA supporters in the Senate did not, however, get rid of LGBT provisions or a measure that extends tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal land.

House Republicans have balked at these provisions in the past, but at least for now, senators don’t care.”  [MSNBC blog]

Now it will be up to the House of Representatives to step up and do the right thing.

Comments Off on Passing VAWA…again

Filed under women, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Overnight Express: News and Views Roundup

Not quite together with Heller (R-NV): “Heller, through his statements and votes in Congress, has consistently supported limiting or eliminating the ability to conduct government business in any language other than English. Heller has sponsored legislation to limit election ballots to English-only, to mandate that the Free Application for Federal Student Aid only be filled out in English and to make English the official national language. Heller also supported a bill to end birthright citizenship.”  [LVSun]   There appears to be just one little problem with Senator Heller’s “outreach” to voters in the Latino/Hispanic community — his proposals don’t exactly match his record.

However, his “no new taxes” allegiance to Grover Norquist et. al. is pleasing to the ears of members of the business community who’ve not yet figured out that in order to support the Republican economic policies to which Governor Romney and Senator Heller adhere, you have to believe that giving the big tax cuts to the top 0.5% of income earners in the U.S. will magically trickle down to local economies.  Small business owners who rightly see themselves as “job creators” seem to have conflated their interests (increasing demand) with the “job cremators” in the ethereal upper reaches of the Wall Street casino who are essentially Financialists for whom actual job creation isn’t a priority.

Not quite a birther?  Republican hopeful Willard M. Romney will be in Las Vegas, NV for a fund raiser ($2500 per) at the Trump International Tower, with The Birther Donald Himself. [RGJ]  It seems Mr. Romney isn’t concerned by The Donald’s foray into the realms of irrationality. “The standard the Romney campaign seems to be advancing here is that it’s OK for the candidate to appear on the same stage as a loon, as long as that loon doesn’t say the thing that makes him loony in the candidate’s presence. And if he does, the candidate can merely disavow it later.” [Salon]  The disappointed birthers may now be busying themselves questioning the President’s college transcripts. [LAT]

Listen Up, and get connected: “None of that matters. Not one whit. The only thing that is going to matter is whether or not Republican astroturf organizations like TruetheVote, Republican governors like John Kasich, Rick Scott and Scott Walker, and Republican True Believers will team up to suppress the vote in enough states to guarantee a stolen election.”  [More at Crooks & Liars] Think this really isn’t happening: Try this egregious example from Ohio.  Governor Rick Scott (FL) has a plan to purge individuals from that state’s rolls. [Think Progress] There’s a lovely example of a inexplicably purged voter in that state as well.

We Didn’t Start the Fire: And why the GOP can’t extinguish its War on Women.   Good litany and explanation here.

Another Romney Theme Another Chart Debunking It:  The GOP is hauling out the old chestnut about Democrats “hollowing out the military” with decreased defense spending.   This canard has worked for them before, but won’t now if this little chart gets enough attention.  Note that the Iraq/Afghanistan warfare spending is shown in red, and that the other chart elements do not decrease.

Financialism can be the cruelest form of capitalism:  Watch what’s happening with American Airlines.   “The parent company of American, AMR Corp., is seeking to cut labor costs by tossing employee contracts where no agreement has been reached. Closing arguments in U.S. bankruptcy court wrapped up Friday; a judge said he expects to rule by June 22.” [MiamiHerald] American has been told to cut labor costs by 20%, meaning a loss of some 13,000 jobs [HuffPo] From last January: “Airline giant AMR, the parent company of American Airlines and American Eagle. AMR, which filed for bankruptcy in November, last week announced plans to retain the advice of Bain & Co., the consulting firm where Romney worked before co-founding private equity firm Bain Capital in 1985.”  [ITTimes] Oh, and did we mention that the pension fund, once an industry gold standard, has come to grief, “the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. slapped liens on $91 million in AMR property after the company paid only $6.5 million of a required $100 million contribution to the plans.”  [HuffPo]

Financialism is often painful — for the financialists:  “JPMorgan dips into cookie jar to offset London Whale losses.” Gains from the sales could provide about 16 cents a share of earnings, about one-fifth of the bank’s second-quarter profit, analysts said. But rather than creating new value for investors, the transactions merely shift gains in securities from one part of the company’s financial statements to another.” [Reuters]  (emphasis added)  As one SEC consultant remarks — dumb move #1 playing with derivatives the company didn’t fully understand, dumb move #2 selling off high value securities they can’t replace….  Do these people really want us to believe they need “de-regulation?”

And, then there’s Citigroup “the biggest U.S. bank to have regulators reject its capital plan this year, dismantled a board committee created during the credit crisis to police the disposal of toxic and unwanted assets. ” [Bloomberg]   This, while it still has queasy mortgages, and loans to Spain and Greece on its books?   Even some big funds are getting bitten, Dewey &LeBoeuf has filed for bankruptcy… with more strain on the Pension Guarantee System.

Recommended Reading:  “How black WWII vets helped lead the Civil Rights Movement,”  The Grio;  unfortunately there’s this article in the same source — “KKK invites North Carolina town to a Whites Only cross burning.”   A semi-sweet ending to the story of a slave cemetery in Georgia in the AJC.

Comments Off on Overnight Express: News and Views Roundup

Filed under 2012 election, financial regulation, Heller, Romney, Veterans, Vote Suppression, Voting, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights