Category Archives: ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture
Writing the rules for 21st century trade
My top priority as President is making sure more hardworking Americans have a chance to get ahead. That’s why we have to make sure the United States — and not countries like China — is the one writing this century’s rules for the world’s economy.
Trade has an important role to play in supporting good-paying, middle-class jobs in the United States. Unfortunately, past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype. That’s why I’ve made it clear that I won’t sign any agreement that doesn’t put American workers first.
But we also should recognize that 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders. Exports support more than 11 million jobs — and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. Failing to seize new opportunities would be devastating not just for our businesses, but for our workers too.
That’s why my Administration is currently negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership — so we can benefit from trade that is not just free, but also fair.
We have the chance to open up more markets to goods and services backed by three proud words: Made in America. For the sake of our businesses, and American workers, it’s an opportunity we need to take.
But beyond greater access to the world’s fastest-growing region, the agreement will establish enforceable commitments to protect labor, environmental, and other crucial standards that Americans hold dear.
Right now, China wants to write the rules for commerce in Asia. If it succeeds, our competitors would be free to ignore basic environmental and labor standards, giving them an unfair advantage over American workers.
We can’t let that happen. We should write the rules, and level the playing field for our middle class. The first step is for Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority.
Watch the video, and then pass it along.
After years of shipping jobs overseas, our manufacturing sector is creating jobs at a pace not seen since the 1990s. Rather than outsourcing, more companies are insourcing and bringing jobs back home. Today, more than half of manufacturing executives have said they’re looking at bringing jobs back from China.
Let’s give them one more reason to get it done, by giving me the tools I need to grow our economy, boost exports for our businesses, and give more hardworking middle-class families a chance to get ahead.
Thanks,
President Barack Obama
Share this:
King Vs Burwell Courting Chaos – SCOTUS will hear arguments
this is a repost
Conservatives Continue To Use The Court To Dismantle The Affordable Care Act
The amicus briefs were due for King v. Burwell¸ the Supreme Court case which threatens to cause a meltdown in the health care system. If the Supreme Court rules against the law, tax credits for health insurance offered through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces in approximately three dozen states would be eliminated. This case, as we have written in the past, is a thinly veiled attempt by ideologically-motivated conservatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act, despite the overwhelming evidence that the law is working.
Simply put, conservatives have no ground to stand on in making their argument—the text of the law is simply at odds with the plaintiffs’ view. Their case is so shaky, in fact, that many prominent conservatives who are fighting against the law have previously undercut their own arguments:
- In a 2013 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gov. Scott Walker said he spent nearly two years studying the law, and found there is no functional difference between a federal and state exchange, “[b]ut, in the end, there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange, or the in between, the hybrid, the partnership.”
- Sen. Orrin Hatch was one of six Republicans to file an amicus brief in favor of gutting the law. Yet the brief directly contradicts an op-ed Hatch co-wrote in 2010 in which he wrote that a state establishing its own exchange, “[i]s not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states.”
- The Heritage Foundation has supported the challengers in King v. Burwell, despite the fact that they wrote an entire white paper on the basis that subsidies would be available to any enrollee. According to that paper, “whoever controls the AHB exchange,” tax credits will be available.
Recently, the challengers in this case have turned to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to substantiate their case because during debates on the law he insisted that states should take the lead on establishing exchanges. But Sen. Nelson, now retired, set the record straight saying: “I always believed that tax credits should be available in all 50 states regardless of who built the exchange, and the final law also reflects that belief as well.”
Much more than a political victory rests on the decision of this case. Stripping premium tax credits from all eligible individuals enrolled in a federal marketplace would have dire consequences. Here are just a few examples:
- The non-partisan Urban Institute estimates that 8 million people would lose health coverage.
- Health insurance companies and hospitals have said stopping subsidies in 34 states “would create severely dysfunctional insurance markets,” and “[i]t would leave consumers in those States with a more unstable market and far higher costs than if the ACA had not been enacted.”
- Public health experts estimate that 9,800 preventable deaths will occur each year if the Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act.
BOTTOM LINE: King v. Burwell is an ideologically-charged case whose real-world implications are much more serious than political gain. Many conservatives arguing against the law have undercut their argument in the past, showing the weakness of their own case. Conservatives should stop playing politics with the livelihood of the American people. The well-being and financial stability of millions of Americans is much more important that partisan politics.
Share this:
I was only 11 years old …. Sara Kruzan via Change.org
Hundreds of thousands of youth are at risk of being victims of sex trafficking in America, but our child welfare workers have little education on the issue. Sign my petition and demand that Congress improve child welfare training and protect our youth.
 |
 |
|
Share this:
Your Supreme Court June Preview
The Supreme Court Will Decide Three Critical Cases This Month
Before the end of this month, the Supreme Court will rule on three cases that could affect the lives of millions of Americans and have a lasting impact on our Constitution. Today, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel discussion with legal experts about what’s at stake as the justices prepare to rule on critical issues like marriage equality, health care, and civil rights.
Here’s what you need to know about these three critical cases:
Healthcare—King v. Burwell: We’ve talked a lot about what’s at stake in the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. But as a refresher: a ruling against the ACA in King v. Burwell would strip premium tax credits away from 6.4 million people and send the health insurance market into chaos. Eliminating federal tax credits could cause more than 8 million people to become uninsured and lead to nearly 10,000 preventable deaths each year.
Marriage Equality—Obergefell v. Hodges: In this case the justices could extend marriage equality to all 50 states. This case combines challenges from four states that have laws that either ban same-sex marriage, fail to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, or both. While the Court is widely expected to rule in favor of marriage equality, the way the opinion is drafted will shape how LGBT rights continue to develop after this case is decided, which will be key given that a ruling for same-sex marriage would mean many LGBT Americans could legally be married one day and legally fired the next.
Civil Rights—Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. This case challenges the decades-old principle that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 should prohibit housing policies that result in discrimination, regardless of whether they were designed to discriminate. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case it could make it much harder to fight discrimination in housing—and potentially all civil rights cases. For a more detailed explanation of this case, check out this CAP column.
While some politicians remain divided on these issues, public opinion on these cases is pretty settled: 55 percent of Americans believing the court should not block federal health care subsidies and 61 percent of Americans supporting marriage equality.
The Supreme Court is traditionally considered to rise above the partisanship and politicking of Congress and the executive branch. But as we well know, the Roberts Court has handed down a series of ideologically-charged decisions that have advanced a distinctly conservative agenda. And as the justices prepare to issue opinions on such critical issues, it has rarely been more important to have a judiciary that protects the rights of all Americans equally.
BOTTOM LINE: This month the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to issue landmark decisions on health care, civil rights, and marriage equality. As the branch charged with upholding the rights of all Americans, the Supreme Court should apply the core tenets of our Constitution rather than reflect the ideological crusades of the conservative movement.
You must be logged in to post a comment.