Representative Goodwin, R-SD wrote:My colleague from Iowa, in voicing his concern regarding proper debate being had on this omnibus, was quickly dismissed by the "progressives" of this Congress. A reasonable request to split three entirely different bills into three different votes was ignored, and now we see the result. This bill might have been excused scrutiny by the entirety of the congressional left, but they shall not rush it's more questionable aspects past scrutiny from this party. Cloaked under dubious claims of economic relief, what this omnibus actually does is trample on the rights of business and individuals. From a coalition in bed with communists and those who still refuse to condemn Roux-Johnson's lying to the American people, we can scarcely be surprised, but that does not make it any less an assault on common sense in the MSA.
Representative Freeman, in his opening comments, speaks truly in stating that this nation is in dire financial straits. It is therefore disappointing that this is the only reaction the regressive left can come up with. Quite apart from the more economically damaging sections, I raise the poorly explained "On Tax-breaks and charitable donations to educational institutions; federal funding to higher education" section of this omnibus."
It is no surprise that - just as with their equally regressive agriculture bill - the Progressives wish to draft guidelines without any real idea of what they might be. I would request an explanation, even if explanations are in short supply from the present coalition.
Likewise, there is no explanation of the timescale that universities and schools would have to conform to these new guidelines. The language is equally unclear. We are told that they must increase the admission of minority or poorer students - or perhaps they need only "adopt" the guidelines. Precisely how this is all to be judged, we do not know. The wholesale abandonment of any for-profit institutions is likely to be damaging to the education sector if not properly thought through or put on a timescale; I encourage answers on all points.
That this country needs reform of the education sector is not in doubt. What is doubtful, however, is that this would do anything except buy the coalition the support of a few far-left think-tanks and potentially damage the number of donations to our educational institutions. In the short-term, the Progressives may see this as beneficial. But in reality, it would only increase the pressure on an already overloaded education sector.
Representative Hanson, R-TX wrote:If I might thank Representative Goodwin for giving way, I would raise the sections of the bill damaging to our economy that he mentioned in passing but now in detail.
Representatives Ortega and Freeman, in introducing this omnibus, attempted to present it as being in some way helpful to MS American economic recovery. Quite aside from the usual partisan comments which blame a loosely defined "right" as being the cause of all our problems, there is a further motive here which I am not convinced is known to their fellow party factions.
Firstly, this bill would place massive pressure on businesses at a tough time. We are all in favour of decreasing inequality, of more jobs, of better jobs. The way to do this is, however, to grow our economy. I hope the Coalition will listen to Republican calls for a budget promptly, and some kind of measure to stimulate growth, whether taking the form of temporary tax breaks on exports, or indeed renewed trade deals.
The way to scuttle our growth is to force businesses to increase the wages they pay their lowest paid workers, and as a consequence the wage they will likely pay all their workers in the short to medium term. While a rising wage is in itself a good thing, it is only good if done when economic growth allows it to be done; it is only acceptable if affordable. This is neither.
The end result would be that businesses could not afford to keep as many staff on when orders or contracts dry up. As if this were not bad enough, companies would also now be forced to pay for all employee benefits - the legislation makes no difference between contracted or permanent staff - whether maternity, pensions or healthcare. This, representatives, would not make it easier for women to be hired - it would make it more difficult, as a business would naturally be faced with increased automatic costs for hiring a female worker even on the shortest of contracts.
But finally, and most questionably, this bill seeks to give an unfair advantage to the "cooperatives" over private American companies. This bill seems to have very little to do with solving our economic problems. Instead it wishes to compensate for the failure of socialist and progressive cooperative encouragement by giving them un-American government support.
This republic needs growth, Congressmen, not more red tape and hostile, anti-business legislation.
Representative Warner, R-OK wrote:I agree entirely. In addition, I am not convinced that the third section of this omnibus has been scrutinised properly. Precisely what is an "offshore" account? Many MSA citizens with dual citizenship, or who regularly visit abroad, would find their legal rights limited by the administration saying they cannot hold any money abroad.
House Minority Leader Matthew J Carpenter wrote:My four colleagues have spoken sensibly and punctually on this omnibus. Without repeating their statements, they have proven it to be lacking consistency and common sense on a number of issues. Individual measures proposed herein have merit, which on there own might win cross-aisle support - but not thrown together with merit-less ideological market-bashing, and not rushed through so brashly, in an economic climate where the markets are already sensitive. This might not matter to those who do not believe in a free market, but the Republican Party does, and we believe this omnibus to be a step to the far-left down a path the MSA does not wish to tread.
12 Republican Conservative votes AGAINST