Safety Committees And Safety Meetings Options For Employers: Fill & Download for Free

Here are some of the main accomplishments. In general, she was very well respected from both sides. Met with suspicion about whether this might be some first lady celebrity lightweight, she soon proved her competence and character. She wisely entered humbly laid back to learn and build relationships and then when she acted, she enjoyed broad support.Served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and made veterans a main focus. She introduced the Heroes at Home Act in 2006 and 2007 to help family members care for those with Traumatic Brain InjuryWorked to increase the military survivor benefit from $12,000 to $100,000, and cosponsored the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act to extend benefits provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act.Bipartisan project to keep the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station open during a time when the Pentagon was shuttering bases. That saved 800 jobs in upstate New York.Worked with Republicans to expand health care for National Guard members and reservists.In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, worked to secure funds for medical assessment, referrals and outreach for 9/11 rescue and recovery workers, and volunteers.Fought to pass the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform. She introduced the Legal Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act, which would give states the option to provide federally funded Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to low-income legal immigrant children and pregnant women.Wrote the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act to meet the growing demand for English language courses and other job skills.Wrote a law providing grants to state and local governments to pay for respite care services for family caregivers, i.e. funding for temporary time-off for caregivers of sick or disabled people.Wrote bills to distribute flu vaccines more efficiently. One of these inspired provisions of a law promoting the production and stockpiling of vaccines to improve our response to public health emergencies.Strengthened SCHIPS, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, introducing multiple bills allowing states to expand the program that she helped create as First Lady (CHIPS). The program, created in 1997, increased health coverage for children in low income and working families.Co-wrote a law compelling drug companies to conduct safety tests for products prescribed for childrenWrote a component of the No Child Left Behind Act authorizing funding for recruiting and retaining better teachers.One of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planningOther women senators say she was a strong advocate for women senators and strongly defended woman’s right to choose.Hope that gives you a good idea of her senate accomplishments.

Let me start an explanation of why the Soviet Union was doomed with a bit of a comic relief in a form of a Soviet joke famously told by US President Ronald Reagan:“…you know there is a ten year delay in the Soviet Union for the delivery of an automobile. And only one out of seven families in the Soviet Union own automobiles. There is a 10 year wait, and you go through quite a process when you are ready to by, and then you put up the money in advance.This man laid down the money, and the fellow in charge said to him: Come back in 10 years and get your car.The man answered: Morning or afternoon?And the fellow behind the counter said: Ten years from now, what difference does it make?And he said: Well, the plumber is coming in the morning.”As hilarious as the joke sounds, it wasn’t that far off the mark. Most things were just hilariously dysfunctional in the Soviet Union. You can think of that now defunct country as a clown car with the nuclear missiles sticking out of the windows, wheel and tires falling off on the go and a tendency by its committee of homicidal drivers to run over the passengers any chance they get. Owning any car in the Soviet Union, even a clown car, was a sign of prestige and prosperity, and you had to wait in line for 5–10 years to get one even if you had the money. And we are not talking about luxurious German models, but the signature Soviet-manufactured crap most people in the West would be ashamed to own, much less drive.The scarcity and poor quality were not limited to cars. While, fortunately, not on a 10 years waiting list, even basic necessities such as butter, sausage or a toilet paper were deficits which you would have to spend several hours in line to buy. And they were very often rationed too. Fortunately, at least since 1960-s nobody was starving. However, if you entered any store, you would be more likely to see empty shells than anything else. So, the news that some new product was brought to a local store would travel at the speed of an internet, decades before internet even existed, and you would see a stampede of local residents rushing to claim their spot in a mile-long line. If the adults were not home, the kids would grab the money their parents left them just for such occasion, among other things, and claim their place in line because there was no telling when would be the next opportunity to get your hands on some of that butter. I would make sure to grab my little sister with me just so that we could get rations for 2 people, instead of just one.The economical mismanagement was so severe, that since the late 1960-s Soviet Union was no longer able to feed itself and had to import increasing quantities of grains form its arch-enemy - United States. And to understand just how ridiculous this situations was, you have to know that the Soviet Union had, by far, the largest and most fertile arable lands in the world. Before Bolsheviks took power, Russian Empire was the biggest grain exporter in the world. And that’s despite being behind the West in terms of agricultural technology. Communists had not just squandered the Russian agricultural export dominance, but they even managed to slip into a food dependency on their greatest geo-political foe.These severe economic inefficiencies were masked for a time by exploding oil and gas prices on which the Soviet economy grew increasingly dependent to the tune of 80% of total Soviet exports. In fact, the huge increase in oil and gas prices was a crucial shot in the arm for the Soviet Union which extended its rapidly declining shelf life by at least a decade, if not more. However, once the oil and gas prices started collapsing in 1980-s, the economic prospects of Soviet Union became pretty dire. The situation was made much worse by the already huge and ever increasing defense expenditures which the Soviet Union was forced to make in its futile attempts to keep up with the US militarily after President Reagan launched a new iteration of an arms race. War in Afghanistan was another drain on precious resources. Seeing an impending doom, the Soviet leadership had no choice but to launch Perestroika and Glasnost.So, unlike many claims here on Quora, Perestroika and Glasnost did not doom the Soviet Union. They were more like a last-ditch effort to save it. There’s an argument to be made that if those reforms started just a decade earlier, then the Soviet Union would have been saved. However, I think that even this scenario is more of a wishful thinking than something rooted in reality.“But, why would you say that?” - some Quorans will cry out.“Look at China! They survived the reforms and the transition from Communism to Capitalism just fine and are now the world’s second largest economy. Why not the Soviet Union?”.Well, because China had some unique advantages over the Soviet Union, such as launching into reforms almost immediately after Chairman Mao’s death. Decades of totalitarian oppression and persecutions under Mao Zedong trained Chinese populace to obediently accept any government initiatives, even if they were as strange as doing an about-turn on the whole Communist idea. The fact that Chinese are notorious workaholics didn’t hurt either. While the Soviet Union was by no means a free and open society, and people going against the party line tended to have significantly shorter life spans, the rules had relaxed quite a bit since the death of Stalin who ruled the country with an iron fist. Under that homicidal maniac being tardy or lazy at work were sufficient grounds to be accused of subversive activity and meeting an early end in prison or GULAG. With Stalin dead since 1953, by the time 1970-s and, especially, 1980-s rolled around, people were generally not eager to bust their behinds and were increasingly questioning the “wisdom and and a leadership role of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”.However, the biggest reason why the reforms were successful in China, but couldn’t save Soviet Union had to do with the ethnic makeup of both countries. China, for all intents and purposes, was a mono-ethnic society with 90% identifying themselves as Han Chinese, while the Soviet Union was only about 50% made up of Russians. And, on top of that, the Soviet Union was not one monolithic country, like China, but a confederation of 15 Soviet republics which, at least according to the Soviet Constitution, had a right to self-determination. Of course, before Perestroika any hint of independence by anybody in those republics would land him or her in jail, GULAG or on an execution list. But, those Soviet republics’ right to self-determination was enshrined in the Soviet Constitution nevertheless.And, surprise-surprise, when the Soviet Union fell apart, it did so along the borders established for those republics when they became a part of the Soviet Union.It’s needless to say that mono-ethnic societies are much more politically stable than the multi-ethnic ones since they normally have a lot more in common to unite them than to divide them. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that many non-Russians living in the Soviet Union had these persistent ideas of becoming independent. Especially people living in Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia who started loudly raising the prospect of an independence almost as soon as the Perestroika started. And they had a very legitimate case for that, since they were internationally recognized independent nations between the times of Russian Empire’s collapse in 1918 and 1940 when they were occupied by the Soviet Union under Stalin. And, luckily for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, their occupation by the Soviets was never recognized by the majority of Western countries, including USA. Forceful and illegal inclusion of Baltic states into the Soviet Union made its borders illegitimate under the international law. So, when their laughably inefficient economy started crumbling, causing Soviets to relax their rules a bit, they found themselves under a growing pressure to let Baltic countries, which they occupied illegally in 1940, go on their own.The important thing to note is that the US was scared to death of Soviet Union collapse. Seeing the bloodbath going on in Yugoslavia, Americans were worried sick that the former Soviet Union will turn into another Yugoslavia, but on a much larger scale and with a clear possibility of nuclear and chemical weapons deployment. And even if the warring factions didn’t use weapons of mass destruction against each other, they could end up selling them to terrorists and rogue states who would then use those weapons to attack USA. Because, with the collapse of Soviet Union there would be no single chain of control over the nuclear and chemical weapons anymore, making it extremely likely that they would fall into the wrong hands. And, even weapons of mass destruction aside, the humanitarian crisis would have been impossible to manage. I mean, look at how the Syrian refugee crisis overwhelmed Europe. It would have been an order of magnitude worse in case of a Soviet Union civil war. That’s not to mention that the violence could have spilled over the vast Soviet borders and engulfed neighboring regions making an already horrible situation even worse.So, these stark scenarios were giving Washington elites violent nightmares at night. That’s why President George H. W. Bush made a famous and aptly named “Chicken Kiev” speech on the floor of Ukrainian parliament on August 1st, 1991, where he admonished Ukrainians not to split away from the Soviet Union. Many Ukrainians were shocked by his words then, but it makes perfect sense now why this American “cold warrior” was so petrified of the Soviet Union collapse.However, there was still an unresolved matter of illegal occupation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by Stalin in 1940. These were the Soviet republics which the Americans wanted to see independent. However, with the independence of Baltic states all but decided, the Communist Party elites in other Soviet republics started getting their own ideas of becoming independent. And the example of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia provided an excellent precedent for putting those ideas into actions.So, if you want to blame someone for causing the Soviet Union collapse, Gorbachev is not your man. He just happened to be in charge of an empire which was already in its death throes before he even took over. Stalin was the one who in his incessant desire for new conquests de-legitimized Soviet Union’s borders by forcefully annexing internationally recognized independent nations of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. People in those new Soviet republics never agreed to that arrangement and, in fact, fought the Soviet occupation in a guerilla warfare, at least in Lithuania, until the beginning of 1950-s. It was only a matter of time before they raised their voices again demanding restoration of their statehood. By doing so they blazed the way for the rest of Soviet republics. If Stalin wasn’t so greedy for acquiring new territories and instead let Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia remain formally independent, while being effectively under the Soviet control, which was also the case for most of the rest of Eastern European countries at that time, then there would a reasonable chance that the Soviet Union could have survived.P.S There was another way to, maybe, keep the Soviet Union in one piece, but that wasn’t an option too many people, even among the Soviet leadership, wanted to entertain. I’m talking about the replay of Stalin times in all of its homicidal glory. As I mentioned above, Soviet Union in 1970-s and 1980-s was far from a free and open society, and people generally had a great deal of fear about crossing the government. But, it wasn’t the sort of mind numbing animal fear they grew accustomed to when Stalin was in charge. That’s why we had a proliferation of jokes laughing at the communist reality of USSR in 1970-s and 1980-s. During Stalin times telling or laughing at jokes like that could end you, your family and anybody you associated with through the guilt by association approach which Stalin’s goons widely employed. You couldn’t even trust your friends and family not to turn you in. So, people kept their mouths shut and went in lock-step with the government’s orders.But, the reason why these barbaric practices didn’t survive Stalin was not so much because the Communist Party elites didn’t want to terrorize the people anymore out of the goodness of their hearts. The thing is that even if you were a faithful Communist never questioning Stalin’s wisdom and always ready to carry out any order coming your way, you were still not safe. Stalin periodically purged whole layers of Soviet bureaucracy and secret police. Loyalty didn’t grant you safety from persecutions regardless of how close you were to Stalin himself at any given moment in time. So, no matter what your place in the Soviet hierarchy was, you had to endure more than 2 decades of sleepless nights during Stalin’s tenure wondering whether your name is next on executioner’s list.That’s why Stalin’s death brought a collective sigh of relief among the Soviet elites, even more so than the general population. Communist bosses didn’t want to walk around with the target on their backs anymore and, therefore, limited the pervasive power and influence of the secret police. They also implemented rules to make sure that no single person would have an absolute and unchallenged power in the Soviet hierarchy. It became a rule by committee, and the General Secretary became first among equals, not an absolute monarch and demigod like Stalin. It was still very bad for your health and life expectancy to challenge the Soviet government and the Communist Party, but they stopped conducting massive purges and guilt by association punishments, plus rules relaxed in other areas as well to where not everything was a capital offense anymore.If, instead of launching Perestroika and Glasnost Gorbachev opted to drench the country in blood, Stalin-style, and thus re-establish a total control over the society, he might have been able to preserve the Soviet Union. However, even then it’s a huge “IF”, since there’s a significant chance of a rebellion in the Communist Party ranks coupled with a popular pushback in response to such a sudden and severe crackdown. Plus, the Poles were already rebelling at that time and there’s a good chance of Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks and East Germans joining them, with the unrest spreading to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and later to Ukraine and other Soviet republics. And those rebellions would have had an excellent chance of success if the US under President Reagan and Great Britain under the “Iron Lady” herself threw their weight behind them. Something tells me that they wouldn’t miss such an opportunity to tame the Soviet beast.

What do [I] think about [President Trump] not allowing the Democrats[‘] rebuttal memo [as submitted] to be released?To be honest, I'm a little disappointed. I'd hoped that the President would release their memo as submitted, full of classified information and all. I'll also acknowledge that this is the first sign of intelligence from the Democratic Party since Trump has been elected.The Democrats put Trump in a no-win situation on this one. If he releases but redacts the memo, the Democrats and their propaganda arm, corporate media, get to cry foul. If he outright refuses to release it, Democrats and corporate media get to cry foul. If he releases it unaltered, Democrats and corporate media get to cry foul, plus some Republicans would join them. All those options are losing propositions that lend credence to either: a) censorship implying that the President is “afraid” of the memo and wants to hide what's in it, or b) that he's reckless with national security and has threatened our “safety” by compromising FBI “methods and sources”.That being said, President Trump comes away with a draw, at worst, by punting the memo back to the Democrats in the House Intel Committee. He returned it to the committee and gave them the option to amend it in a manner that does not, or minimally, reveals those “methods and sources” our intelligence agencies are so protective of. They still have the opportunity to present a rebuttal, but it must meet the same standards of the Republican sponsored memo.In reality, the Democrats on the House Intel Committee have no interest in having their say; they merely wished to take an opportunity to deflect from the previously released memo, posture as if there’s some (unknown) justification for the information contained therein, and portray the President as threatened by that (unknown) justification. The Republican (“Nunes”) memo contained nothing that revealed “methods and sources” other than mentioning Christopher Steele as a prior asset, which compromises Steele rather than FBI practices external to the case and individual in question.It’s a clever, if obvious and predictable, political ploy by the Democrats on the committee to fill their rebuttal with details concerning “methods and sources” that they know would prevent its release. It is in this sense that I personally would’ve preferred that Trump raise, rather than just call, their bluff but doing so would’ve been a bit extreme, and leaves the administration open to the previously mentioned criticism.But… why would the Democrat memo necessarily be a bluff? Why couldn’t it be an adequate response, as represented? Unfortunately, there’s nothing the memo could contain that would justify or mitigate what is contained in the previous memo. Specifically, FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that the “Steele dossier” was essential to obtaining FISA warrants for surveillance of an American citizen (and indirectly a presidential campaign then incoming administration), former FBI director James Comey testified that the “Steele dossier” was known to be unverifiable prior to obtaining several of those warrants, the wife of DOJ official Jonathan Ohr was hired by Fusion GPS, and there is clear concrete financial evidence that the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign were the employers of Christopher Steele through Fusion GPS through the Law Firm Perkins-Cole and this fact (though known to the FBI at the time) was withheld from the FISC. This information was confirmed in a subsequent memo released by Senators Grassley and Graham, which further revealed that Clinton surrogates acted as additional sources for Steele.No facts contained in either memo have been disputed by the FBI.The Democrats and corporate media have tried to spin the revelations as much as possible, but not convincingly (except to those who already take their word for Gospel and committed to a zealous hatred of President Trump). Indeed, the information confirmed by the “Nunes” (and subsequent “Grassley-Graham”) memo is damning and cannot be rationally excused.I’ll make a prediction: the Democrats on the House Intel Committee are not going to revise and resubmit a rebuttal memo. As mentioned, I do not believe they ever intended to. The rebuttal they submitted was nothing but sleight-of-hand. Their hope is to play up the “he’s censoring our memo because he has something to hide, and it’s not fair” angle for a week or so, then the whole thing will blow over once they find something else “controversial” to, with the enthusiastic aid of corporate media, distract the public with. (Note: as I write this, I see CNN is faithfully holding up their end of the bargain…)In conclusion: the Democrats did the logical thing, loaded up the memo with details that can’t “responsibly” be released, as it was really their only move. President Trump responded well, not falling for the bait, and did the smart thing by making it clear that he still would like the Democrats to submit a rebuttal that can be released to the public. The Democrats now find themselves back in a tough spot, as they were before submitting their rebuttal, but overall nothing much has really changed.I hope I’m wrong and that the Democrats do submit a rebuttal that can be released. I’m interested in what they have to say. The American public could certainly benefit from greater Federal transparency, but suffers from governmental obfuscation far too often.