Tag commentary

Transgender ‘bathroom bill’ a battle of conflicting rights

WRTC_WebAdmin Leave a comment

by State Representative Jim Lyons

Courtesy of Wikimedia

None of our rights is absolute. Even our most precious rights have limitations. The First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble are expansive but hardly unconditional. The proverbial rule against “yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is a common example of why our individual rights must sometimes be circumscribed for the public good. Some restrictions are needed to secure the rights of all, against the abuses of the few.

We are, however, more frequently faced with “rights in conflict,” rather than clear-cut abuses. In balancing competing rights, legislatures sometimes get it wrong.  For example, in 2007, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a so-called “buffer zone” law to limit the free speech rights of pro-life activists in order to ease entrance to abortion facilities. In McCullen vs. Coakley, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Massachusetts law was overly restrictive and violated the free speech rights of peaceful protestors.

Today, the Massachusetts legislature once again has before it a bill involving competing rights. In a nutshell, the question before the legislature is this: Should Massachusetts eliminate protections for persons who expect restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to remain lawfully sex-segregated?

Those longstanding rights come smack up against the Transgender Public Accommodations bill (House Bill 1577), “an act relative to gender identity and nondiscrimination.” Often referred to as “the bathroom bill,” HB 1577 removes biology and physiology from primary consideration when a person chooses to enter an intimate public place such as a rest room — whether in a school, library, restaurant, government office, department store, or sports arena.

In 2011, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Transgender Equal Rights Act. While expanding protections against discrimination for transgender persons, that bill specifically maintained traditional expectations about who is permitted in the most sensitive public settings — bathrooms and other lawfully segregated facilities.  If this new bill is allowed to become law, those expectations will be wiped away.

Now, we vividly see the rights in conflict. The goal of HB 1577 is to expand protections for transgender persons. But at what point do those broadened protections conflict with the rights and protections guaranteed to others?

If passed, this law would guarantee the ability of transgender persons to choose whichever public restroom they prefer: men’s or women’s. Access to a restroom of one’s personal choice would override the right to privacy and security that the general public has long enjoyed. Up until recently, there has never been a question about whether a public women’s room is exclusively reserved to women. This bill says that men who claim to identify as women will share access to such heretofore restricted public facilities. What matters is the personal claim of “gender identity,” not the person’s objective anatomy.

Even assuming that those who seek unfettered access to the bathroom of their choice will not abuse that right, real and potential challenges, conflicts, and tensions will remain. But what if someone does seek to abuse that right, posing an outright danger to the public?

All of these conflicts are magnified tenfold whenever children are involved. Should underage boys and girls be assured that their right to privacy is protected in public restrooms? Or should the claims of adults trump those children’s rights?

As a member of the House of Representatives, I believe that the protection of children is paramount. That’s reason enough for me to oppose House Bill 1577. Voting against the bill is the surest way to allay the apprehensions of parents who fear that their children will be subject to awkward or even traumatic situations. Always lurking in the background is the possibility of abuse of access, an abuse which we can all unite in forcefully and unequivocally condemning.

Not every parent shares these concerns. And not every family agrees as to the best resolution of the conflict. That’s the unending dilemma of rights in conflict. There’s always a need to balance one against another. As a legislator, I am constantly reminded of the ongoing need to get that balance as correct as possible. In this case, I believe the right to privacy and security for all persons, especially for children, outweighs the demand for universal access. I shall be voting to maintain current rights, policies, and protections when I vote “No” on “the bathroom bill.”

Jim Lyons (R-Andover) represents the 18th Essex District in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. 

– See more at: http://newbostonpost.com/2015/09/23/transgender-bathroom-bill-a-battle-of-conflicting-rights/#sthash.pOos4ML6.dpuf

General Electric Announcement

WRTC_WebAdmin Leave a comment

MassGOPPressReleaseBanner

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

January 13, 2016

CONTACT:
Terry MacCormack
781.799.1987

MassGOP Statement On General Electric Announcement

BOSTON — Today, the Baker Administration announced that General Electric plans to move its world headquarters to Boston, a move that will bring hundreds of high-paying jobs and exciting new economic development opportunities to Massachusetts. MassGOP Chairman Kirsten Hughes released the following statement praising the Baker Administration for these developments:

“Governor Baker and his administration have started to build a pro-growth, competitive environment for Massachusetts, and General Electric’s decision to move its world headquarters to Boston is a result of that work. Tax-and-spend Democrats in the Legislature should recognize that the environment of high taxes and heavy regulations created by Connecticut’s Democratic governor is a road to job loss. The Commonwealth is lucky to have a Republican governor who values this kind of innovative business investment that will lead to long-term economic growth.”

Background:
General Electric announced today that it plans to move its world headquarters to Massachusetts. “It’s a major victory for Governor Charlie Baker and Mayor Martin J. Walsh, whose aides worked closely together for several months to lure GE to a city that has seen many of its biggest companies swallowed up by out-of-town buyers, and a state that has labored hard to shed the ‘Taxachusetts’ label pinned on it during the 1970s. (Jon Chesto, “GE confirms it’s heading to Boston,” Boston Globe, 1/13/16)
General Electric sought to leave Connecticut after repeated tax hikes.“General Electric, one of the world’s largest companies, has dropped a bombshell on its home state of Connecticut: It’s looking to relocate to another state. As part of an attempt to plug a deficit, Connecticut lawmakers decided in June that its corporate citizens weren’t doing their part. So they proposed levying $700 million in new business taxes on them. GE responded by saying it would consider leaving Connecticut.” (Harriet Jones, “General Electric Looks To Leave Connecticut,” WBUR, 10/1/2015)
###
Paid for by the Massachusetts Republican Party
85 Merrimac Street, Boston, MA 02114 | info@massgop.com | 617.523.5005
If you no longer want to receive updates, you can unsubscribe from this list

 

MA Republican Senate Caucus takes Action

WRTC_WebAdmin Leave a comment

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Office Of The Senate Minority Leader
Senator Bruce Tarr
State House, Boston, MA 02133-1054

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: November 18, 2015
Contact: Don Siriani, Office 617-722-1600, Cell 978-761-0472 don.siriani@masenate.gov

Senate Republican Caucus Secures Child Exploitation Protections

Boston- The Senate Republican Caucus today succeeded in securing an amendment that will raise awareness of child abuse and exploitation in a bill that changes the state’s sexual health education law.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) authored the legislation which directs the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to include among sexual health curriculum, guidelines for child exploitation awareness education for school districts.
“Sadly, experience has taught us that some in our society will put children at risk for abuse, neglect or maltreatment,” said Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester). “Tens of thousands of suspected child abuse reports are filed with the state each year and child safety experts confirm that raising awareness of the warning signs of exploitation can make a significant difference in keeping children safe.”

The Tarr amendment was inspired by Erin Merryn, a childhood sexual assault survivor and the namesake of Erin’s Law.

Erin’s Law requires public schools to include a prevention oriented child sexual abuse program. Tarr’s amendment will better inform school personnel about child sexual abuse, assist parents in recognizing the warning signs of child abuse, and empower children to guard against exploitation.

Following debate on the matter the Tarr amendment was adopted by the Senate by a unanimous vote of the members.

If signed into law by Governor Baker Massachusetts would move into a majority of states which have adopted it. 26 states have adopted Erin’s Law and it is currently pending in 17 others.

###

Don Siriani
Legislative & Communications Director
Office of Senator Bruce E. Tarr
Senate Minority Leader
State House, Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-1600 (Office)
978-761-0472 (Mobile)
617-722-1310 (Fax)

Opinion: Refugee Resettlement

WRTC_WebAdmin Leave a comment

 

October 1, 2015
For Immediate Release
Contact:  Stephen Miller, 202.224.4124
 
Sessions Expresses Severe Concern Following Admin Refugee Testimony
 
“The testimony provided today only further erodes my confidence in our ability to vet Syrian refugees or to control the extraordinary expense imposed on taxpayers…
 
The responsible and compassionate course for the United States is to help assist in the placement of refugees as close to their homes as possible…Encouraging millions to abandon their homes in the Middle East only further destabilizes the region, while imposing enormous costs on an American public that is struggling with low pay, rising crime, high deficits, and overstretched community resources.”
 
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, issued the following statement today after the conclusion of the oversight hearing on the Administration’s planned refugee resettlement surge:
 
“Today the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest conducted an oversight hearing with four Administration officials responsible for administering America’s refugee programs.  The testimony provided today only further erodes my confidence in our ability to vet Syrian refugees or to control the extraordinary expense imposed on taxpayers.  The following facts were established conclusively:
 
·       We do not have access to any Syrian government database to learn the backgrounds of these refugee applicants.
·       We do not have adequate resources or records and will not conduct any meaningful investigation of each of the thousands of applicants.
·       The administration approves over 90 percent of all Syrian refugee applications.
·       We have no capacity to determine the likelihood that Islamist refugees, once admitted to the United States, will become involved with terrorist activity.
·       We are already struggling with a huge problem of prior Islamist refugees seeking to take up arms with terrorists, and we have every expectation that the Administration’s current refugee plans will exacerbate that problem.
·       It is not a probability, but a certainty, that among the more than 1 million migrants from Muslim countries we will admit over the next decade, a number will already be radicalized or radicalize after their entrance into the U.S.
·       With respect to cost, the $1.2 billion budget for refugee placement is only a minute fraction of the total expense, and does not attempt to measure the short-term or long-term costs of providing access to virtually all welfare, healthcare, and retirement programs in the U.S. budget, as well as community resources such as public education and local hospitals.
·       Robert Rector, with the Heritage Foundation, estimates the lifetime cost of benefits at $6.5 billion per 10,000 refugees.  In the most recent year, the Office of Refugee Resettlement provided services to some 140,000 newly-admitted refugees, asylees, and related groups.
 
The United States has let in 59 million immigrants since 1965, and is on pace to break all historical records within a few years.  We now face the enormous challenge of helping millions of our existing residents – prior immigrants, refugees, and the US-born – rise out of poverty.  Our first duty is always to those already living here.  The responsible and compassionate course for the United States is to help assist in the placement of refugees as close to their homes as possible.  Encouraging millions to abandon their homes in the Middle East only further destabilizes the region, while imposing enormous costs on an American public that is struggling with low pay, rising crime, high deficits, and overstretched community resources.”
 
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) serves on four Senate committees: Armed Services, Budget, Environment and Public Works, and Judiciary, where he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. Visit Sessions online at his website or via YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Note: Please do not reply to this email. For further information, contact Sen. Sessions’ Press Office at (202) 224-4124.

Transgender ‘bathroom bill’ a battle of conflicting rights

WRTC_WebAdmin Leave a comment

BY  | SEPTEMBER 23, 2015, 5:58 EDT

Courtesy of WikimediaCourtesy of Wikimedia

None of our rights is absolute. Even our most precious rights have limitations. The First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble are expansive but hardly unconditional. The proverbial rule against “yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is a common example of why our individual rights must sometimes be circumscribed for the public good. Some restrictions are needed to secure the rights of all, against the abuses of the few.

We are, however, more frequently faced with “rights in conflict,” rather than clear-cut abuses. In balancing competing rights, legislatures sometimes get it wrong.  For example, in 2007, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a so-called “buffer zone” law to limit the free speech rights of pro-life activists in order to ease entrance to abortion facilities. In McCullen vs. Coakley, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Massachusetts law was overly restrictive and violated the free speech rights of peaceful protestors.

Today, the Massachusetts legislature once again has before it a bill involving competing rights. In a nutshell, the question before the legislature is this: Should Massachusetts eliminate protections for persons who expect restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to remain lawfully sex-segregated?

Those longstanding rights come smack up against the Transgender Public Accommodations bill (House Bill 1577), “an act relative to gender identity and nondiscrimination.” Often referred to as “the bathroom bill,” HB 1577 removes biology and physiology from primary consideration when a person chooses to enter an intimate public place such as a rest room — whether in a school, library, restaurant, government office, department store, or sports arena.

In 2011, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Transgender Equal Rights Act. While expanding protections against discrimination for transgender persons, that bill specifically maintained traditional expectations about who is permitted in the most sensitive public settings — bathrooms and other lawfully segregated facilities.  If this new bill is allowed to become law, those expectations will be wiped away.

Now, we vividly see the rights in conflict. The goal of HB 1577 is to expand protections for transgender persons. But at what point do those broadened protections conflict with the rights and protections guaranteed to others?

If passed, this law would guarantee the ability of transgender persons to choose whichever public restroom they prefer: men’s or women’s. Access to a restroom of one’s personal choice would override the right to privacy and security that the general public has long enjoyed. Up until recently, there has never been a question about whether a public women’s room is exclusively reserved to women. This bill says that men who claim to identify as women will share access to such heretofore restricted public facilities. What matters is the personal claim of “gender identity,” not the person’s objective anatomy.

Even assuming that those who seek unfettered access to the bathroom of their choice will not abuse that right, real and potential challenges, conflicts, and tensions will remain. But what if someone does seek to abuse that right, posing an outright danger to the public?

All of these conflicts are magnified tenfold whenever children are involved. Should underage boys and girls be assured that their right to privacy is protected in public restrooms? Or should the claims of adults trump those children’s rights?

As a member of the House of Representatives, I believe that the protection of children is paramount. That’s reason enough for me to oppose House Bill 1577. Voting against the bill is the surest way to allay the apprehensions of parents who fear that their children will be subject to awkward or even traumatic situations. Always lurking in the background is the possibility of abuse of access, an abuse which we can all unite in forcefully and unequivocally condemning.

Not every parent shares these concerns. And not every family agrees as to the best resolution of the conflict. That’s the unending dilemma of rights in conflict. There’s always a need to balance one against another. As a legislator, I am constantly reminded of the ongoing need to get that balance as correct as possible. In this case, I believe the right to privacy and security for all persons, especially for children, outweighs the demand for universal access. I shall be voting to maintain current rights, policies, and protections when I vote “No” on “the bathroom bill.”

Jim Lyons (R-Andover) represents the 18th Essex District in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. 

posted at: http://newbostonpost.com/2015/09/23/transgender-bathroom-bill-a-battle-of-conflicting-rights/

A NATION STILL UNPROTECTED

WRTC_WebAdmin 11 Comments

images-5

Fourteen years have passed since the worst terror attack on our soil. Three thousand people, including hundreds of firefighters and police officers died on September 11, 2001. What have we, as a nation, learned from the sorrow and suffering of that day ?

We certainly haven’t learned anything about security! A fundamental principle is to secure your perimeter (e.g. protect your borders). After fourteen years nothing has been done to secure our southern border. Drugs, criminals and potential terrorist, hidden among a mass of poor and desperate migrants, pass undetected into our homeland every day. Another principle is access control. Instituting and adhering to measures that will ensure that only “suitable” persons enter our borders has also not materialized.   Instead, our immigration regulations go unenforced, and despite the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, an adequately vetted “real identification” system for the nation has never been implemented.

Threat elimination is another fundamental concept. It means taking the fight to our enemies. We began to achieve this in Iraq and Afghanistan until 2009. President Obama pulled the pin on any initiatives by US troops to root out terrorist elements in those nations. Consequently, the Taliban has returned to Afghanistan, and a gang of cutthroats, known as ISIS, have emerged in the heart of the Middle East. Their stated goal is to destroy Israel first and then the United States.   Their policy of terror is now destabilizing Europe as hundreds of thousands of refugees flee their brutality in Syria, and are now overwhelming Europe.

These failures can be attributed to a political school of thought, epitomized by President Obama, which views America as the problem not the solution for the world. Consequently, the Obama administration’s approach to the global threats we face is tentative and at times derelict. His approach has been inappropriate, ineffective and prone toward disaster. Obama caters to the “hard left’ , whose world view has been historically marked by its disregard of the realities of the military balance of power and its influence on both our national security and foreign policy.. The chaos playing out in the Middle east and around the Mediterranean is the end product of this. If this doesn’t change, we will find ourselves facing another September 11th and soon .

The Redistributive State: How Government Shifts Economic Resources from High- to Low-Income Households

WRTC_WebAdmin Leave a comment

Robert Rector / September 15, 2015 

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on income and income inequality. Historically, the official Census figures on inequality are misleading because they fail to account for most government fiscal redistribution. The high taxes paid by affluent households are ignored, and most of the government benefits and services received by lower-income households are not counted.

But government fiscal redistribution in the U.S.  is extensive:  the transfer of resources from higher- to lower-income groups is a major governmental activity.

>>> Read the full report here. 

The left constantly complains about inequality, calling for higher taxes and increased government spending. But before calling for even more government redistribution, it is important, at least, to understand how much redistribution currently occurs.

A new report from The Heritage Foundation analyzes total government fiscal redistribution. It follows the Census Bureau framework by ranking all households according to income and then dividing the households into five “quintiles,” each containing one fifth of households. The total federal, state, and local taxes paid and the total government benefits and services received by each quintile are then calculated.

The average household in the top quintile received 31 cents in benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid.

The lower-income three quintiles (containing 60 percent of households) were found to be in fiscal deficit: they received more in government benefits and services than they pay in taxes.

By contrast, the top two quintiles were in fiscal surplus: they paid more in taxes than they received in government benefits.

The average household in the bottom-income quintile received $6.87 in government benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid. On average, these households received $24,700 more per year in government benefits and services than they paid in taxes.

By contrast, the average household in the top quintile received 31 cents in benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid. On average, these households paid $48,000 per year more in taxes than they received in benefits and services. The surplus taxes paid by these households represented around one-sixth of their overall pre-tax income.

In 2004, the top two quintiles paid about $1.3 trillion more in taxes than they received in government benefits. One trillion dollars of these surplus taxes were used to pay for the benefits and services for the individuals in the lower-income half of the population. This transfer of economic resources represented around 8 percent of the gross domestic product.

If a similar ratio of transfers occurred in 2014 (which is likely), then around $1.4 trillion in economic resources was transferred from high- to lower-income households in that year. That would be about $9,000 for every person in the lower-income half of the population.

The government benefits and services accounted for in this analysis included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, means-tested welfare benefits and services, unemployment insurance and other cash transfers, and public education. The cost of routine government services such as police and fire protection, roads, and sewers was also included. Public goods such as scientific research, national defense, and interest on government debt were not included. All federal, state, and local taxes were counted, including federal and state income taxes, Social Security contributions, corporate profit taxes, sales and excise taxes, and property taxes.

The main problem with the social welfare system in the U.S. is not a lack of government spending. Instead, the main flaw is that most welfare programs discourage work and actively penalize marriage. This increases dependence and the apparent need for even greater spending, a self-perpetuating cycle with no end in sight.

http://click.heritage.org/UghR04T0eH0Msk03ir000ZZ