Supreme Court Tells Working Women, You're on Your Own (OneWorld.net)

Jun 21 (New America Media) - Sitting in the majestic paneled courtroom in the U.S. Supreme Court three months ago, it did not take long to get that dreaded sense that Betty Dukes and 1.5 million other current and former women employees at Wal-Mart were not likely to prevail in their epic 10-year battle against the nation's largest private employer.

On Monday, that premonition came true. The Supreme Court threw out several lower-court rulings and declared that the women’s claims of massive, persistent sex discrimination were not sufficiently similar to merit class-action status. Ladies, you are on your own!

In order to get the case certified as a class action, Dukes and her fellow plaintiffs had introduced vast amounts of evidence supporting their claims of discrimination. Women made up two-thirds of the Wal-Mart work force, yet held only one-third of management jobs. Wal-Mart had a far smaller proportion of women managers when compared to the other major retailers. Indeed, in 1999 (the most recent date for which data were available) Wal-Mart had a lower percentage of female managers than its top competitors had in 1975.

Other evidence from Wal-Mart’s own personnel records showed that women were paid less on average than their male counterparts in all job classifications, despite having higher performance ratings and more seniority than their male co-workers.

This evidence, along with more than 100 declarations from women employees around the United States, convinced a San Francisco federal court to certify the class in 2004, allowing the women to sue en masse and giving them a fighting chance against the corporate giant. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the class certification three separate times, albeit by a narrow majority. Wal-Mart was thrilled when the pro–big business Supreme Court agreed to hear its appeal.

To no one’s surprise, the court sided with Goliath. Where Wal-Mart’s women workers and their lawyers see group inequality in the form of common practices and policies that place women in a disadvantageous position, the Supreme Court’s conservative, all-male majority could only see 1.5 million individual women with specific, unrelated gripes about how much Wal-Mart pays them, and individualized complaints about promotional opportunities they may have been denied.

In my notes of the hour-long oral argument this past March, the conservative majority’s skepticism comes across loud and clear. Justice Kennedy: “Let’s suppose that experts’ testimony, sociologists and so forth, establish that in industry generally and in the retail industry (in particular), women still are discriminated against by a mathematical factor of X. You have a company that has a very specific policy against discrimination, and you look at their — the way their employees are ... treated, and you find a disparity by the same mathematical factor X. Does that give you a cause of action?” Translation into common English: If everyone else does it, how in the world can a woman claim there’s discrimination at Wal-Mart?

This same question was asked, in one form or another, by each of the conservatives (except Clarence Thomas, who asked no questions during oral argument, as is his custom). In the end, they decided to give Wal-Mart a€” a company well known for its union-busting policies and for profitting off the backs of its low-wage workforce a€” the benefit of their doubt. In a corporation with 3,400 stores located in 50 states, with an express policy forbidding discrimination, and where managers had substantial discretion as to how much employees were paid or who was promoted, the court's majority held that the plaintiffs could not establish that their claims of discrimination had enough in common to warrant suing en masse.

The dissenting justices — Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer — strongly disagreed. They found the evidence convincing that “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s corporate culture” and noted that the company’s policy of giving supervisors great discretion to make personnel decisions “has long been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects.” The justices (three of whom are female) argued that the suit should go back to the lower court for further determination as to whether the class action could proceed. The majority dismissed the class altogether.

On March 28, 2011, the night before the Supreme Court argument, the American Association for University Women and the Alliance for Justice hosted a reception for Betty Dukes and the other Wal-Mart plaintiffs. These working-class women were thrilled to be in Washington and proudly introduced their family members, who stood by them on the eve of the most public day in their otherwise ordinary lives. The women had spent a decade fighting Wal-Mart because they had tired of second-class status in the workplace, and they refused to watch while their daughters and nieces and another generation of women were paid less and passed over for well-deserved promotions. Whatever happened, they had fought the good fight a€” and the support they felt that night sustained them, despite the odds.

After the oral arguments, the women of Wal-Mart stepped into the crisp Washington sunshine with their heads held high. Win or lose, their case had already brought about some major changes at the retailer. Two years after the lawsuit was filed, the company finally began posting management opportunities, and the “tap on the shoulder” system of promotions that had clearly favored male employees was eliminated. Later, the company restructured its pay system, erasing some (but not all) of the wage disparity. It also put in place training programs aimed at increasing the number of women managers. Only when it felt the heat of the class action was Wal-Mart willing to mend its ways.

What will happen to the women of Wal-Mart now that their class action has been disbanded? As a lawyer who was once part of the legal team that represented Betty Dukes, Chris Kwapnoski, Edith Arana and the other plaintiffs in this case, I can’t help but find the Supreme Court’s decision deeply disappointing, not just for the women but for all people who band together to challenge corporate practices that inflict widespread harm.

I know the plaintiffs are disappointed, too. But they haven’t come this far to give up now. The evidence of discrimination at Wal-Mart is not wiped out by this ruling, and although the case cannot proceed as a nationwide class action, these resourceful and determined women will regroup and continue their fight for justice and equality. They have no other choice.

NAM contributor Irma Herrera is a civil rights attorney who spent almost 15 years as executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, one of the main law firms in the Wal-Mart case.

Want to Know More?

» OneWorld Guide to Gender Issues Worldwide

ALL THE LATEST GLOBAL HEADLINES

Yahoo! News

Supreme Court Tells Working Women, You're on Your Own (OneWorld.net)

Jun 21 (New America Media) - Sitting in the majestic paneled courtroom in the U.S. Supreme Court three months ago, it did not take long to get that dreaded sense that Betty Dukes and 1.5 million other current and former women employees at Wal-Mart were not likely to prevail in their epic 10-year battle against the nation's largest private employer.

On Monday, that premonition came true. The Supreme Court threw out several lower-court rulings and declared that the women’s claims of massive, persistent sex discrimination were not sufficiently similar to merit class-action status. Ladies, you are on your own!

In order to get the case certified as a class action, Dukes and her fellow plaintiffs had introduced vast amounts of evidence supporting their claims of discrimination. Women made up two-thirds of the Wal-Mart work force, yet held only one-third of management jobs. Wal-Mart had a far smaller proportion of women managers when compared to the other major retailers. Indeed, in 1999 (the most recent date for which data were available) Wal-Mart had a lower percentage of female managers than its top competitors had in 1975.

Other evidence from Wal-Mart’s own personnel records showed that women were paid less on average than their male counterparts in all job classifications, despite having higher performance ratings and more seniority than their male co-workers.

This evidence, along with more than 100 declarations from women employees around the United States, convinced a San Francisco federal court to certify the class in 2004, allowing the women to sue en masse and giving them a fighting chance against the corporate giant. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the class certification three separate times, albeit by a narrow majority. Wal-Mart was thrilled when the pro–big business Supreme Court agreed to hear its appeal.

To no one’s surprise, the court sided with Goliath. Where Wal-Mart’s women workers and their lawyers see group inequality in the form of common practices and policies that place women in a disadvantageous position, the Supreme Court’s conservative, all-male majority could only see 1.5 million individual women with specific, unrelated gripes about how much Wal-Mart pays them, and individualized complaints about promotional opportunities they may have been denied.

In my notes of the hour-long oral argument this past March, the conservative majority’s skepticism comes across loud and clear. Justice Kennedy: “Let’s suppose that experts’ testimony, sociologists and so forth, establish that in industry generally and in the retail industry (in particular), women still are discriminated against by a mathematical factor of X. You have a company that has a very specific policy against discrimination, and you look at their — the way their employees are ... treated, and you find a disparity by the same mathematical factor X. Does that give you a cause of action?” Translation into common English: If everyone else does it, how in the world can a woman claim there’s discrimination at Wal-Mart?

This same question was asked, in one form or another, by each of the conservatives (except Clarence Thomas, who asked no questions during oral argument, as is his custom). In the end, they decided to give Wal-Mart a€” a company well known for its union-busting policies and for profitting off the backs of its low-wage workforce a€” the benefit of their doubt. In a corporation with 3,400 stores located in 50 states, with an express policy forbidding discrimination, and where managers had substantial discretion as to how much employees were paid or who was promoted, the court's majority held that the plaintiffs could not establish that their claims of discrimination had enough in common to warrant suing en masse.

The dissenting justices — Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer — strongly disagreed. They found the evidence convincing that “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s corporate culture” and noted that the company’s policy of giving supervisors great discretion to make personnel decisions “has long been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects.” The justices (three of whom are female) argued that the suit should go back to the lower court for further determination as to whether the class action could proceed. The majority dismissed the class altogether.

On March 28, 2011, the night before the Supreme Court argument, the American Association for University Women and the Alliance for Justice hosted a reception for Betty Dukes and the other Wal-Mart plaintiffs. These working-class women were thrilled to be in Washington and proudly introduced their family members, who stood by them on the eve of the most public day in their otherwise ordinary lives. The women had spent a decade fighting Wal-Mart because they had tired of second-class status in the workplace, and they refused to watch while their daughters and nieces and another generation of women were paid less and passed over for well-deserved promotions. Whatever happened, they had fought the good fight a€” and the support they felt that night sustained them, despite the odds.

After the oral arguments, the women of Wal-Mart stepped into the crisp Washington sunshine with their heads held high. Win or lose, their case had already brought about some major changes at the retailer. Two years after the lawsuit was filed, the company finally began posting management opportunities, and the “tap on the shoulder” system of promotions that had clearly favored male employees was eliminated. Later, the company restructured its pay system, erasing some (but not all) of the wage disparity. It also put in place training programs aimed at increasing the number of women managers. Only when it felt the heat of the class action was Wal-Mart willing to mend its ways.

What will happen to the women of Wal-Mart now that their class action has been disbanded? As a lawyer who was once part of the legal team that represented Betty Dukes, Chris Kwapnoski, Edith Arana and the other plaintiffs in this case, I can’t help but find the Supreme Court’s decision deeply disappointing, not just for the women but for all people who band together to challenge corporate practices that inflict widespread harm.

I know the plaintiffs are disappointed, too. But they haven’t come this far to give up now. The evidence of discrimination at Wal-Mart is not wiped out by this ruling, and although the case cannot proceed as a nationwide class action, these resourceful and determined women will regroup and continue their fight for justice and equality. They have no other choice.

NAM contributor Irma Herrera is a civil rights attorney who spent almost 15 years as executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, one of the main law firms in the Wal-Mart case.

Want to Know More?

» OneWorld Guide to Gender Issues Worldwide

ALL THE LATEST GLOBAL HEADLINES

Yahoo! News

Pakistan tells CIA chief no U.S. boots on the ground (Reuters)

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – CIA Director Leon Panetta told Pakistan's army and intelligence chiefs that he was concerned about a reduction of U.S. troops allowed in the country, but was bluntly told no American boots would be allowed on the ground, Pakistani military officials.

Panetta, nominated to take over as defense secretary next month, arrived in Pakistan Friday in an unannounced visit, his first trip since a secret U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden and severely damaged ties between the allies.

Pakistan's army said Thursday it had drastically cut down on the number of U.S. troops allowed in the country and set clear limits on intelligence sharing with the United States.

"He (Panetta) expressed concerns over the reduction of trainers and operatives. We told him very clearly 'no boots on our soil is acceptable'," said the Pakistani military official.

Panetta held talks with army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of military intelligence.

The Pakistani military released a statement saying: "Both sides discussed the framework for future intelligence sharing."

A U.S. embassy spokesman said he had no information on the talks.

The United States kept Islamabad in the dark about the May 2 raid by Navy SEALs until after it was over, humiliating Pakistan's armed forces and putting U.S. military and intelligence ties under serious strain.

"We told him that we are clear. We don't want their people. Intelligence sharing is fine and we are ready for that," said another military official.

Washington was angered by the fact that bin Laden had apparently been living for years in a Pakistani town about a two-hour drive from the intelligence headquarters.

Pakistan has been under mounting pressure to prove it is a more reliable partner in the America's campaigns against Islamist militants launched after the September 11 attacks on the United States.

The United States believes the nearly decade-old war effort in neighboring Afghanistan cannot succeed unless Pakistan tackles insurgent safe havens near the border.

Friday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, also a U.S. ally, arrived in Islamabad and asked Pakistan to help end the Taliban insurgency.

Pakistan, which supported the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until its ouster in 2001 by U.S.-backed forces, will be crucial to any attempts to stabilize its western neighbor.

But Pakistan has often been accused of playing a "double game," promising the United States it will go after militants, while supporting some groups such as the Haqqani network, an allegation it denies.

U.S. commanders say the military effort in Afghanistan is being undermined partly by Pakistan-based militants.

The Haqqanis use safe havens in Pakistan's North Waziristan region to stage cross-border attacks against American troops in Afghanistan, and U.S. officials have accused Pakistani intelligence of ties to the group. Pakistan denies the allegations.

(Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Yahoo! News

Afghan leader tells NATO attacks on homes "not allowed" (Reuters)

KABUL (Reuters) – President Hamid Karzai warned the NATO-led force in Afghanistan on Tuesday that launching attacks on Afghan homes in pursuit of insurgents was "not allowed" and that patience with the tactic had run out after a spate of civilian casualties.

"NATO must learn that air strikes on Afghan homes are not allowed and that Afghan people have no tolerance for that anymore," Karzai told a news conference in Kabul.

Karzai reacted angrily after NATO air strikes on a compound inadvertently killed at least nine people -- most of them children -- in southern Helmand on Sunday. The strikes were ordered after a patrol had come under fire.

Civilian casualties caused by foreign troops, usually in air strikes or "night raids" on Afghan homes as they hunt insurgents, have long been a major source of friction between Karzai and his Western backers.

Karzai warned that Afghans had had enough of the tactics, which he said were a violation of Afghanistan's sovereignty.

"If they don't stop air strikes on Afghan homes, their presence in Afghanistan will be considered as an occupying force and against the will of the Afghan people," he said.

"The international community has helped us a lot but they cannot risk the lives of Afghan people, this can't be compensated," Karzai said, adding he had warned NATO commanders "a hundred times."

Tension boiled over at the weekend after the strikes on the compound in Helmand's Nawzad district. Graphic television footage after the strikes showed grieving relatives holding the bodies of several children, including babies.

The commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in southwestern later apologized for the deaths, saying the strikes on the compound had been ordered because insurgents were using them as a base.

U.S. and NATO commanders have stepped up the use of air strikes and night raids in the past 12 months, arguing they are effective weapons against insurgents who often hide among the Afghan population.

However commanders have significantly tightened the rules for using both tactics over the past two years amid a growing outcry from Afghan leaders.

U.N. figures show that at least three-quarters of civilians are caused by insurgents but it is those by NATO forces which cause the most anger among ordinary Afghans.

Karzai repeated that he had given NATO a "last warning" over air strikes and night raids but again did not go into any details about what his government would do if the tactics were not stopped. He said he hoped to meet ISAF commanders in Kabul later this week.

"Afghanistan has a lot of ways of stopping it ... But we would like NATO to stop it on their own," Karzai said.

The latest NATO strikes came at a time of high anti-Western sentiment in Afghanistan, and with a gradual security transition from foreign forces to Afghans due to begin in several areas in July.

The argument over air strikes and night raids also comes at a time of heightened violence across the country since the Taliban began their spring offensive at the start of May.

(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Writing by Paul Tait; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Military ruler tells Egyptians to look forward (AP)

CAIRO – Egypt's military leader on Monday called on his people to look to the future, help improve internal security and work for a better economy.

It was the first public speech by Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi since his Military Council took power in Egypt after President Hosni Mubarak was deposed on Feb. 11 after a popular revolution.

Tantawi spoke at a graduation ceremony for police cadets. His 20-minute speech was broadcast on Egyptian TV.

He said internal security and the economy are linked and spoke against a wave of protests and labor strikes that has rocked the country.

He said, "Let's leave the past aside, not forget it, but put it aside for now so that we can push forward with the most energy we have."

Reformers are pressing for prosecution of Mubarak and members of his regime for corruption.

Mubarak's wife turned over her property and funds to the state, a move designed to settle corruption allegations against her, officials and lawyers said Monday.

Mubarak and his wife, Suzanne, have been questioned about their financial dealings. Some estimates put Mubarak's holdings in the tens of billions of dollars.

The prosecution of former regime officials, including the Mubaraks, has been one of the main demands by the activists who led the uprising that forced Mubarak to step down on Feb.11.

By relinquishing her claims, Mrs. Mubarak is benefiting from articles in the law which allow those accused of making illegal gains of giving them up in exchange for dropping the investigation, said lawyer Nasser Amin.

The move could open the way for others who are in detention on accusations of abusing their powers to settle with the state by returning their money.

Suzanne Mubarak, 70, has been hospitalized following an order to detain her over allegations she took advantage of her husband's position to enrich herself.

Mubarak, 83, is also in the hospital under detention for investigation into his financial dealings. He is also facing allegations that he ordered the a violent crackdown against protesters.

A prosecution official said the investigation by anti-corruption prosecutors disclosed that Suzanne Mubarak had about $3 million in bank accounts in Egypt and owned a villa in the suburb where she and her husband lived. It was not yet clear how much money the Mubaraks had abroad.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose details, said the case against her has not yet been closed, but the settlement strips the case of its importance, and her detention order may be reconsidered.

Amin said the settlement clearly a "compromise" to let the former first lady go free, while her children and husband remain under detention, and to meet one of the demands of the revolutionaries, which is to retrieve wasted money.

He said not everyone will be pleased.

"The decision may not be accepted by society, who after a revolution, side with the idea of revenge. But from the legal point of view, this is in line."

Tantawi, 75, has led a largely secretive military body ruling the country. The Military Council has called parliamentary elections for September, with a presidential election to follow.

Reformers have criticized the military for continuing some of the ways of the Mubarak era, including arresting activists and imprisoning them without charges.

Tantawi appealed for calm and unity, speaking out strongly against Muslim-Christian violence that has erupted several times since Mubarak was deposed.

He said the military rulers will not tolerate religious strife, warning that they will strike with "an iron fist" against instigators.

___

Associated Press writer Ashraf Sweilam contributed to this report from Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Italy: cardinal tells faithful of pastor's jailing (AP)

ROME – Italy's top cardinal in a message read aloud Sunday at Mass informed shocked faithful in a Genoa suburb that their longtime pastor has been jailed for investigation of pedophilia and giving drugs to a minor.

Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, archbishop of Genoa, also heads Italy's bishops conference. He unexpectedly had shown up at Saturday evening Mass in the church to express his "shame." On Sunday, his message denouncing the alleged "immoral behavior" of the Rev. Riccardo Seppia was read out to parishioners in Holy Spirit church in Sestri Ponente.

The message reiterated the cardinal's stern rebuke of the 51-year-old Seppia which Bagnasco delivered personally a day earlier.

"While we renew our full trust in justice and its task of ferreting out the truth of the affair, I have come here, dear friends, to share your shock and heartache, together with shame and total disapproval if the grave accusations end up being confirmed," Bagnasco said.

Italian news reports said the priest, who had served as Holy Spirit's pastor for 14 years, was arrested Friday night for allegedly abusing a 16-year-old boy and giving him cocaine.

Bagnasco told parishioners Seppia was suspended from all ministry duties, including celebrating the sacraments.

Italian news reports said Seppia's lawyer was studying what defense strategy to adopt for the priest, who was scheduled to be interrogated by magistrates in jail Monday. The lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment.

Clergy sex abuse scandals have only recently emerged in heavily Catholic Italy after years of silence. The cardinal's swift, hands-on reaction to the arrest was a sharp departure from a deep-rooted tendency of Italian churchmen to defend their ranks in a country where the Vatican is politically influential and citizens often deferential to clergy.

Many Italians depend on their local parishes to provide social services that their government generally lags behind in, especially activities for children, like after-school sports programs and summer camps.

While clergy sex abuse scandals exploded in the U.S., much of Western Europe and elsewhere in the past two decades, the church in Italy had appeared to be largely unscathed. But the last few years have seen several criminal cases brought against Italian priests, and the pace of the crackdown could be quickening.

This spring, a court in Florence sentenced a former priest to 4 1/2 years in prison for alleged sexual violence against a girl. A few weeks earlier, a Rome court had convicted a former pastor in the Italian capital of sexually abusing seven children who attended parish summer camp and after-school programs and sentenced him to more than 15 years in prison.

The Vatican has been struggling to convince its worldwide flock that is serious about swiftly rooting out pedophile priests from the ministry and protecting minors from them. On Monday, it will issue a document designed to help bishops around the world craft guidelines to deal with clerical sex abuse cases.

(This version corrects day of arrest to Friday from Saturday.)

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Obama Pitches Budget Deal, Tells Senators to Run With Details

Reuters

While deficit commission co-chairman Alan Simpson suggests prayer is the answer to finding long-term debt reduction, President Obama is counting on a small group of senators to turn his 2012 budget proposal submitted two months ago into a long-term plan to reduce the government's tab.

That's no easy task. The president's budget submission in February allows for a $1.2 trillion deficit in 2012 alone, and $9.4 trillion additional debt over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. 

But after continued reports of record-breaking debt numbers and a proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to reduce debt by $6.2 billion over 10 years, the president this week outlined his own offering -- a plan that called for $4 trillion in savings over 12 years, in part by increasing current tax rates for families earning $250,000 or more. 

"It is a balanced plan that asks for shared sacrifice in order to provide shared opportunity for all Americans," Obama said Thursday after a meeting with his deficit commission co-chairmen. 

The proposal doesn't come with any new budget revisions being sent to Congress, a decision that was not an afterthought, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

"The 2012 budget already exists," an OMB spokeswoman told Fox News on Thursday. "The framework outlined yesterday builds on the president's 2012 budget to provide a comprehensive, balanced approach to deficit reduction. The president's goal was to lay out his vision, not to write specific legislation or present every detail and say take it or leave it. This charts a path forward."

That decision didn't please the Senate Budget Committee ranking Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

"The president has obviously recognized that the budget he submitted was inadequate," Sessions told FoxNews.com. But instead of offering a revised budget, which is required by the Congressional Budget Act, Obama is taking the stage to try to discredit Ryan, he said. 

"They have no intention of actually following through the speech with concrete proposals that Congress can evaluate," he said. "The idea he's proposing can't be evaluated because it's just talk."

Without a revised budget, getting from Obama plan 1.0 to Obama plan 2.0 appears to be a task left at the doorstep of the Gang of Six -- three Republicans and three Democrats who served on the failed deficit panel but are committed to looking for a middle ground on debt reduction.  

Jack Lew, the president's budget chief, called it a "significant challenge" to get "from here to where we need to go," but said the most popular commentary in Washington is to say it's impossible to reach an agreement.

"When Congress gets back ...  the vice president will meet with leaders and lay out the issues that they need to work through, with a pretty tight deadline, with the goal of having progress by Memorial Day" and a vote in June, he said.

"The important thing is that we have action," said Erskine Bowles, a deficit commission co-chairman who met with Obama and his co-chairman Simpson on Thursday. 

Calling the Gang of Six "very brave, bold senators," Bowles said it will likely be up to it to come up with legislative language for a vote.

"I don't think anybody has a crystal ball, but I do think we have a framework set up," he said. "Every single plan is talking about $4 trillion of deficit reduction. That's the key and now what we have to do is take the best ideas out of all plans and get to real action."

"I think they will put out their plan, and then if anybody else wants to put in a plan we suggest that they do so, and that would be a wonderful thing, and then we'll just mess around the plans and see where's the best results," Simpson added. 

But their confidence belies the trouble the Gang of Six is having reaching an agreement.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a member of the Gang of Six, told Fox News that everything is on the table -- entitlements, domestic spending and revenue in the form of tax reforms. 

But Conrad, who as Budget Committee chairman is responsible for submitting a Democratic budget in the Senate, said he's been holding off so as to give every chance for the group to come together. 

"I think that's what's required at the end of the day," he said. "Look, neither party can do this on its own. This is a circumstance in which one party controls the House, one controls the Senate. Of course the president has his own views, so if we don't come together, nothing is going to happen."

But Sessions said he's perplexed by the decision to leave it to six senators unknown to most of America. 

"The Gang of Six, I'm not sure how they were selected or how they're expected to perform, and we have no confidence they will reach any agreement," he said, adding that maybe it could come up with some ideas, but the group is limited in latitude. "They're not able to do much more than sit around a room and give and take a little bit."

Ryan, R-Wis., whose legislation is expected to get a House vote before Congress leaves this week for a two-week spring break, said he's more encouraged that his bill will pass now that the president has failed to lead with a revised budget and offered what he described as a slanted speech to the nation. 

"When the commander-in-chief sort of brings himself down to the level of the partisan mosh pit that we've been in, that we are in, it makes it more difficult to bring that kind of leadership," he said.

Related Links Congress Passes Budget for 2011, Sends to Obama for Signature Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

D.C. Delegate Tells Congress to Go 'Straight to Hell' Over Budget Battle

MyFoxDC.com

Shown here is D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Lawmakers' tempers are flaring on Capitol Hill over the possibility of a government shutdown, and D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is no exception. 

The Democratic non-voting representative for the District of Columbia told MyFoxDC.com that Congress should go "straight to hell" for trying to meddle in D.C. affairs. 

Norton was referring to a provision in the stopgap budget bill House Republicans are pushing that would ban federal and local taxpayer dollars in the District of Columbia from being used to pay for abortions. 

"We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians," she said, according to MyFoxDC.com. "It's time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell." 

The D.C. provision is part of a GOP proposal to keep the government running for one week while congressional negotiators try to hammer out a long-term budget deal. The stopgap proposal would cut $12 billion, and Democrats say they plan to oppose it. 

Click here to read more at MyFoxDC.com.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article