The US Senate spent nearly $230,000 to bail out its already overpriced federal barbershop and Republicans then joked about their time spent at the shop.

The Senate’s personal barbershop has been in business for 153-years and because of union laborers being employed the average salary is  $81,641, far higher then the national average for stylists.

Because of high labor costs the shop lost a good $300,000 chunk of money lately despite charging $27 for a cut-and-blow-dry, $105 for highlight jobs and 27,000 annual customers.

Speaking to The Daily Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer remarked:

“There’s no way to sugarcoat” the problem, “It’s costing the government money, and that includes taxpayers like you and me. That’s the way it is. I just have not pulled the trigger. That’s on me.”

While Gainer acknowledged that it might be time to end the federal barbership his Republican counterparts disagree, according to Sen. John McCain jokes that he calls his barber the “butcher” because  ”He is a butcher, and I’ve got the scars to prove it. I’m lucky to be alive and have needed several blood transfusions to survive.”

McCain might be laughing but with nearly 28 million Americans out of work arguments that union labor is more expensive doesn’t hold any weight, Senate leaders looking for a haircut should pay more for their haircuts, not pass the buck on to taxpayers.

Do you think American taxpayers should be paying for U.S. Senators to get their haircuts or should they pony up money at regularly prices barbershops like the rest of us?

US Senate Bails Out Federal Barber Shop is a post from: The Inquisitr

Here at The Inquisitr we have been covering the whole SOPA, PIPA, and the Blackout of the Web but even before those two extremely flawed bills surfaced we were covering the international treaty commonly referred to by ACTA, even though all the trade organizations (funded by the entertainment industry) did their best to keep secret.

Most recently both James Johnson and H. Scott English wrote about the re-emergence of ACTA as a real matter of concern. The fact is that ACTA is even more insidious that either SOPA and PIPA might have been before they were shelved.

I first started writing about ACTA back in 2010 here at The Inquisitr and have been a vocal opponent of the treaty because it totally bypasses the direct involvement of elected politicians that could be held accountable for their actions. It is because of this problem with accountability that ACTA was never created as “a law” but rather as a “trade treaty” – as I wrote here in April 2010:

So why a trade agreement?

The simple answer to that question is – the laws; and legal rights, are getting in the way.

The entertainment industry has been trying in the US – with a lot of campaign bucks being donated – to get the laws changed to something more in their favor but there is this pesky thing called the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court that keeps getting in the way. While that hasn’t stopped them it has made their task a lot more difficult.

Then you have all those really irritating foreign countries with their own silly laws. They’ve tried in Canada to influence our government by donating as much as they possibly can, by whatever means they can, to favorable political candidates running for office. There influence has also been felt in other countries around the world but in the end – or at least at this point in time the standing laws of those countries are proving more difficult to get around than the entertainment industry would like.

With all these headaches why not find another way to get what you want and not have to deal with these piddling laws which is what the industry has done. You see in the Global Economy trade agreements trump local laws. You might not think so but in reality they do. Just look at any WTO disagreements, in the end the WTO trade agreements will trump local laws – hint: the current battle between the US and Antigua over online gambling.

So rather than have to constantly fight against the constantly shifting landscape of local laws the entertainment industry realized it was much easier to engineer a global trade agreement outside of even the WTO, WIPO and other related world trade organizations typical responsible for this type of thing. By doing so they have in effect created a global trade agreement that could marginalize or replace the WIPO.

Fast forward to today and we suddenly find that an interesting situation has arisen in the Untied States in regards to ACTA. It seems that President signed the ACTA treaty a few months ago, with apparently little or no fanfare, but questions are now being asked by those who do keep a very close eye on this – was Obama even allowed to sign ACTA?

It has been pointed out that any treaty between the US and any other country, which is exactly what ACTA is, requires Senate approval – which ACTA never got. What it did get was a change in semantics where is was now being called an “executive agreement” so that President Obama didn’t need Senate approval.

However, and this is where the constitution comes into play, this “treaty” is about intellectual property (supposedly) and as Mike Masnick at Techdirt points out the president cannot legally sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and that it must be submitted to the Senate.

That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement? The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.

This is why Senator Wyden has asked the President to explain why Congress has been cut out. Scholars have noted their concern that if allowed, this will open the door to allowing the president to regularly route around Congress on international agreements.

I have said before and I will say it again – the success against SOPA and PIPA is only the opening skirmish of a much bigger war being waged around intellectual property. ACTA has been in the background for sometime but now that SOPA and PIPA have been shelved (temporarily) the fight needs to be now directed against the much more insidious and global version called ACTA.

However the question is now before us .. did President Obama knowingly and intentionally sidestep the US Congress in order to placate the entertainment industry; and in doing this did he break United States Constitutional law?

Did Obama break constitutional law by signing the ACTA treaty? is a post from: The Inquisitr

House Speaker John Boehner announced on Thursday that the GOP has struck a deal with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to extend the payroll tax cut for two months.

The same deal was met just one week earlier with opposition from House Republicans who wanted a one-year extension to be offered. Originally passed with bipartisan support by Senate members it took a week of negotiations for House Republicans to prepare for the passage of the bill which extends Jan. 1 tax cuts for working class Americans.

After President Obama demanded that the bill be passed GOP members continued to negotiate with House Democrats while Boehner revealed:

“We will ask the House and Senate to approve this agreement by unanimous consent before Christmas.”

Such a move would allow chamber members to pass the bill without objection, allowing them to remain at home with their families rather than returning to Washington over the holidays for an emergency vote over the holiday recess.

The agreement comes hours after Boehner rejected a call from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Kentucky) to craft a short-term extension. During his rejection Boehner asked that a one-year tax cut extension be accepted, a deal that was becoming increasingly hard to navigate.

McConnell released the following statement:

“House Republicans sensibly want greater certainty about the duration of these provisions, while Senate Democrats want more time to negotiate the terms,” and “These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and should do both.”

Under the current tax cut schedule the average American worker saves $1,000 per year, approximately $40 per paycheck. Under  th current plan cut taxes are levied at 6% instead of 6.2% while long-term benefit users would have also seen their monthly benefits drop.

In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal this week the paper observed that House Republicans had lost the political advantage they once held over Obama and the Democrats when it comes to advocating tax cuts. The paper’s editors said the GOP has:

“Achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter.”

“At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly.”

While Boehner may have agreed to the two-month extension he also noted:

“We can do better … It’s time for us to sit down and have a serious negotiation and solve this problem.”

Before the agreement was reached President Obama met with various middle-class Americans at the White House on Thursday to demonstrate how much the quickly vanishing American middle-class needs the tax holiday to extend past December 31

In his address President Obama told those in attendance:

“It’s time for the House to listen … to the voices all across the country and reconsider,” and “I am ready to sign that (Senate) compromise into law the second it lands on my desk.”

“So far, the only reason it hasn’t landed on my desk … is because a faction of House Republicans have refused to support this compromise,” the president added. “Has this place become so dysfunctional that even when people agree to things we can’t do it? It doesn’t make any sense.”

The Payroll Tax Cut also arrived alongside other tied-in issues including an extension to emergency federal unemployment benefits and the “doc fix” which would provide a delay in scheduled pay cuts to Medicare physicians.

While top Democrats and Republicans agree on the need for a one-year tax cut they simply haven’t reached agreement on how they will pay for those extended cuts.

Passing the bill was also important for the GOP as it’s largely believed President Obama will use the new election cycle to copy Harry Truman’s 1948 campaign in which he railed out against an unpopular and often dysfunctional Congress that was also controlled by the GOP and was unable to reach resolve on most issues.

In pouncing on the Republican base House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said on Thursday:

“Republicans have been arguing about process and politics … The stakes are too high to be arguing about politics and process. The Republican contention that the two-month compromise somehow is unworkable is simply untrue.”

It should be noted the this isn’t the first time that the George W. Bush implemented tax cuts have been met with gridlock, Washington politicians experienced a similar situation in 2010 when discussing the renewal of the tax cuts.

The biggest potential losers from GOP fallout are of course the 2012 Presidential hopefuls who took vastly different approaches to addressing the issue on Thursday with Mitt Romney providing the standard political answer of providing insight after the fact:

“My own view is had I been president, I would have been working with the leaders in both parties to see if there’s not a way to reach common ground. My assessment of the circumstances is that there is common ground to reach in this matter. This should have been dealt with some time ago.”

Newt Gingrich didn’t offer much in terms of solution either, noting:

“Incumbent presidents have enormous advantages. And I think what Republicans ought to do is what’s right for America,” Gingrich said. “They ought to do it calmly and pleasantly and happily.”

At this point any deal that is struck will now look like the hard work and determination of President Obama’s administration who pushed for more time with a guaranteed two month extension. Even if GOP members are instrumental in the creation of a new extension that allows for the Payroll tax cuts to run through all of 2012 it will have been the Democrats who first pushed for more time to allow for a better deal.

Even a weaker agreement than originally proposed by the House GOP based will still look as if the Democrats pushed for something instead of nothing, no small feat during an election year that saw worries over the economy mounting against President Obama and his fellow Dems.

Do you think the GOP has shot themselves in the foot by playing into the Democratic parties tax-cut demands directly before an election cycle? How would you propose that the Republican party react in order to turn the tides of their own mucked up decision?

John Boehner, Fellow GOP Members Agree To Payroll Tax Cut Extension is a post from: The Inquisitr

The United States Senate on Thursday passed a massive $662 billion defense spending bill that brings with it various sanctions, harsher treatment of suspected terrorists and more.

Under the bill the U.S. plans to issue crippling sanctions against Iran in the hopes of choking off finances to the country by marking their entire banking sector as a “primary money laundering concern.”  By marking the Iran banking system in such a way the US and other international banks will closely monitor transactions and deny fund transfers from the countries lending institutions.

Sanctions against Iran were met with a 100-0 unanimous vote despite the possibility that gas prices could be pushed up in the United States because of the tighting control over Iran’s finances.

Speaking about sanctions against Iraq Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) noted:

“Iran’s actions are unacceptable and pose a danger to the United States and the entire world,” and ”Iran supports terrorist groups, arms the killers of American soldiers, lies about its nuclear program, violates its citizens’ basic rights and threatens Israel’s security.”

The bill will also allow the U.S. military to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial even if they are captures on US soil and if they are American citizens.

Because of the bills ramped up security against “possible” terrorists the White House has already threatened to veto the bill. The White House issued the following statement:

“Applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the US would raise serious legal questions, and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

The terrorist section of the bill would also require that all terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and their affiliates be placed under direct military custody, while American citizens would be exempt from such military holdings control.

The bill has managed to anger civil rights groups, including the the senior legislative counsel for the ACLU who revealed:

“Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.”

It’s not just the American Civil Liberties Union that opposes more military control over terrorist suspects, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also opposed the bill as did FBI Director Robert Mueller who both said the bill “challenges or constrains the president’s authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation.”

The section of the bill authorizing money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 was met with a vote of 93-7.

It should be noted that the bill is $27 billion less than President Obama requests and $43billion less than what Congress awards to the Pentagon in the 2010 fiscal year.

As of Thursday the White House has said the threat of a veto still stands if the bill remains in it’s current state.

Do you think the U.S. Senate has overstepped their bounds is the treatment of potential terrorists? Would you pay more for gas at the pump if it meant constraining the power of Iran?

[Image via ShutterStock.com]

US Senate Passes Massive $662 Billion Defense Spending Bill is a post from: The Inquisitr

Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson is set to announce his Senate bid today, though his choice of venue for the big reveal may raise eyebrows.

That’s because Thompson will be announcing his run at a company owned by one of 29 campaign donors who have been cited for allegedly exceeding the annual $10,000 limit on campaign contributions in 2010.

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign produced a report targeting donors to both Democrats and Republicans. The organization alleges Weldall Manufacturing President David Bahl of Waukesha donated $11,580 to various campaigns. And guess where Thompson will be announcing his bid?

Since mid-November, when WDC released their report, ten of the donors mentioned have paid fines, a further 13 filed sworn affidavits stating campaign committees overstated their contributions, yet another four, including Thompson’s pal Bahl, have yet to see their cases resolved.

The report alleged that the bulk of Bahl’s contributions went to Republicans, though a $500 contribution was reportedly granted to Democrat Jeff Plale, who lost his re-election bid to the State Senate in 2010 for being “too conservative”.

In the current climate, deflecting attention on the corporate money-in-politics issue doesn’t seem that wise.

Doors for the Thompson announcement open at 5 p.m. He’ll be challenged for the Republican nominee by State Senator Frank Lasee, Mark Neumann, John Schiess, and State Representative Jeff Fitzgerald. At the time of writing, Tammy Baldwin is the only announced candidate for the Democratic ticket.

Tommy Thompson, Ex-Wisconsin Governor, Launches GOP Bid for Senate is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a 52 to 46 vote held on Thursday, the Senate blocked a GOP bid to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s controversial net neutrality regulations.

Earlier this week, the White House threatened to veto the measure should the Senate pass it, saying that repealing net neutrality regulations would jeopardize freedom on the internet.

“It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world,” the White House said.

Republicans argue that the FCC overstepped its legal authority with the net neutrality regulations, adding that regulating the internet would stifle its growth, and even referring to the regulations as a “job-killer”.

“While we all understand the importance of an open Internet, I think we can also agree that the growth of the Internet in the last 15 years is an American success story that occurred absent any heavy-handed regulation by the federal regulators in Washington,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as reported by The Hill.

“[W]e should think long and hard before we allow unelected bureaucrats to tinker with it now.”

Republicans aren’t the only ones going after the FCC’s net neutrality regulations. Several large telecommunications companies have voiced strong concerns over net neutrality. Verizon has even filed a suit against the FCC in an attempt to stop the bill.

[Image credit: Bloomberg]

Senate blocks GOP bid to repeal net neutrality is a post from: The Inquisitr

Elizabeth Warren hopes to become the next Democrat U.S. Senator but she may have hurt her chances after she referred to herself as an “elite hick” during a recent interview.

Speaking with ABC News Warren the Senate hopeful made her comment after political attacks were aimed at her Harvard professor background.

“I’m a new category, an elite hick,” said the Massachusetts Democrat while adding, I don’t even know what to say about that one.”

She then appeared to be joking when she laughed as she said:

“I’m going for the hick vote here,” and “I just want you to know. Maybe we could start wearing stickers that say, ‘Hicks for Elizabeth.’ Could we do that?”

Massachusetts Republican in the meantime called her use of the word “hick” insulting, apparently to actual hicks.

For there part her campaign says Elizabeth was just acting in jest:

“Elizabeth gave a self deprecating answer when an interviewer said that like her, he was from Oklahoma and often called a hick,” while adding, “It was a lighthearted moment in an otherwise serious conversation about Elizabeth’s fight for middle class families.”

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times, cracking jokes in the middle of a near double dip recession just doesn’t translate well for voters who want real honest answers to unemployment and other risks of economic collapse.

Do you believe Ms. Warren was just attempting to tell a joke or that was her campaigns response to avoid further backlash from voters and the GOP?

Senate Hopeful Elizabeth Warren: I’m An “Elite Hick” is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s a no go for President Obama’s American Jobs Act. All Republicans and two Democrats (Ben Nelson and Jon Tester) voted to stop the bill when it reached the Senate floor on Tuesday.

As previously reported the bill required 60 votes to advance with only 53 seats currently residing with the Democratic party.

Before the vote Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said:

“The truth of the matter is, most Democrats know just as well as I do that passing another stimulus and tax hike is a lousy idea — which is why the president is having such a hard time convincing many Democrats to vote for it.”

Speaking in defense of the American Jobs Act Jim Messina, campaign manager of Obama for America noted:

“Their strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory.” Messina added, “They think that the more folks see Washington taking no action to create jobs, the better their chances in the next election. So they’re doing everything in their power to make sure nothing gets done.”

Several Democrats who voted yes to the bill said they opposed the proposal as it currently stands but would be willing to vote yes in the future when the bill is broken down into it’s basic components and voted on again.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the bill didn’t pass, various members of the Republican led Senate said they would filibuster the act when it reached the voting floor.

Do you believe Republican lawmakers made the right decision in terms of shooting down the bill or should the American Jobs Act have been passed in the hopes of ensuring 5 million American’s don’t lose unemployment benefits come January 2012?

Senate Blocks American Jobs Act With Filibuster is a post from: The Inquisitr

A June 7th hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee is set, but Republicans plan to boycott the probe into debt levels among students of for-profit higher educations.

The dispute is the latest battleground in wrangling between the parties on the practices of higher education institutes charging students often astronomical fees that come in the form of federally guaranteed loans- but often don’t translate to actual, physical jobs after graduation. A recent move to mandate basic English tests on admission (to ensure foreign students doomed to failure due to a lack of English proficiency were not admitted) was similarly opposed by Republicans in California.

It’s interesting how the party consistently selling itself as the most fiscally responsible is so loathe to regulate one of the last great money orgies in this country. In a letter sent late last month critiquing the investigation, top ranking panel Repub Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY) went so far as to suggest the hearings were retaliatory against schools that resisted the implementation of fairer practices:

“We are troubled by statements from the Majority staff suggesting that the continuation of this investigation is motivated in part by a desire to embarrass the institutions you were unable to persuade to participate in previous hearings,” the letter says.

Among the complaints of those calling for legislation are that the institutions value ability to pay tuition over merit, use of “high-pressure sales techniques” among potential students, siphoning federal aid and turning out class after class of unemployable, debt-ridden students.

For-Profit Colleges Probed, Repubs Boycott Hearing is a post from: The Inquisitr

Senator and former Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman is not very well regarded among democrats right now thanks to his unending mission to deny the American people a reasonably priced health insurance option.

I think Senator Al Franken (D-MN) speaks for many of us when he tells Lieberman to STFU on the Senate floor. Bonus: McCain wants Franken to get off his lawn:

Sen. Franken shuts Lieberman down on Senate floor is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) invoked the anger of right-wing bloggers by upbraiding a Brigadier General during a Capitol Hill hearing on June 16th.

The YouTube video below shows the tongue-lashing, during which Senator Boxer reprimands the fellow for calling her “ma’am” in what many right-wingers see as clear anti-military bias from the Democrat. According to US Army protocol, it is accepted to call Senators “Sir,” “Ma’am,” or “Senator.” Well, accepted by everyone but Sen. Boxer.

In the clip, Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh is testifying in front of Sen. Boxer, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During the hearing on the status of the delays in the rebuilding of levees in New Orleans, Walsh addresses her as “ma’am,” proving the following exchange:

Boxer: “You know, do me a favor? Could say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?”

Walsh: “Yes, ma’am.”

Boxer: “It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.”

Walsh: “Yes, senator.”

Oh, Snap! Sen. Boxer in hearing smackdown is a post from: The Inquisitr

The American auto industry may be on the edge of collapse with the US Senate set to reject the proposed $14 billion auto bailout, the last opportunity to approve the bailout until the new year.

The formal vote is still to be had, and Democrats said that they would present it anyway, but talks with minority Republicans failed to find support.

The White House said in a statement that it would evaluate its options, but declined to say what those options may be. Democrats have previously asked that some of the $700 billion bailout package approved in October be used to prop up the auto industry, an approach President Bush has so far rejected.

Oh well, they can always sell their corporate jets, that might cover GM and Chrysler for a day of two until they file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Senate to Auto Industry: No Bailout for You is a post from: The Inquisitr