Tag Archives: cable tv

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Retirement …


The White House, Washington

What’s the difference between a doctor, a lawyer, and a financial adviser? It may sound like a bad joke, but it’s a dead serious question.

When you go to a doctor or a lawyer, you expect that the advice you get is in your best interest. That’s because lawyers and doctors have an obligation to look out for what’s best for you.

Right now, the same simply doesn’t always hold true when it comes to saving for your retirement. That’s wrong.

Trusted retirement advisers who provide critical financial advice every day are not obligated to look out for your best interests. As a result, they can steer you toward high-cost, low-return investments instead of recommending quality ones, because it means back-door payments for them. Meanwhile, you’re stuck with hidden fees and lower returns that could cost you tens of thousands of dollars over your lifetime.

That’s simply not fair, and we started changing it today: Under the President’s direction, the Labor Department will publish a rule in the coming weeks that will require retirement advisers to put the best interests of their client above their own financial interests.

Many advisers don’t accept back-door payments or hidden fees. They are hardworking men and women who got into this work to help families achieve their dreams. But outdated rules and fine print make it hard for these advisors to compete — and for working- and middle-class families to know who they can trust.

This is a big deal for anyone currently saving for retirement, no matter how young or old. Learn more about today’s announcement — and what it means for you.

Find out what today's announcement means for you.

The action we announced today was founded on a simple premise:

When you’ve worked hard to build up a retirement nest egg, you’ve earned the right to sound advice. You deserve to know that your adviser is working for you. More than that, you deserve to know that they have a clear legal and ethical obligation to look out for what’s best for you. That’s just common sense.

The rule we’ll roll out will etch that principle into the law — and help make sure workers get the quality advice they need to save. After a lifetime of hard work, every American — no matter what their income level — deserves a shot to retire with dignity.

Here’s what you can expect next:

Once the rule is published, we’ll accept public comments and hold a public hearing to discuss the proposal. That means you — and any member of the public — can add a comment and share your insights.

Learn more about today’s announcement, and what comes next.

We’re looking forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks,

Tom

Secretary Tom Perez
Department of Labor

 

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

M&M’s only use this ingredient in America


 

Petitioning Paul Michaels

M&M’s Candies: Stop Using Artificial Dyes Linked To Hyperactivity
Petition by Renee Shutters and CSPI
177,922
Supporters
~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Stephanie Ervin, Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility


Getting sued is no fun.  Most people try to avoid it.  But not us.  In fact, we’ve asked to join the people of Washington as co-defendants in the gun lobby’s lawsuit attacking Initiative 594 – our new universal background checks law.
Why’d we do it?  Because 594 is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  And it’s making our communities safer.  We’ve spent the last two years fighting to pass the initiative and defending the initiative against the gun lobby’s attacks.
And we know how to beat them.
We’re asking grassroots supporters to raise $35,000 by the end of the month – that’s midnight tonight – to help us build the 594 Legal Defense Fund. This is going to be tough fight, and we need all hands on deck.
We’re getting close to hitting the goal, but we’re almost out of time.  Chip in a donation right now, and let’s show the gun lobby that we won’t back down!
Let’s do this!
Stephanie
~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

love …


World“The best love is the kind that awakens the soul; that makes us reach for more, that plants the fire in our hearts and brings peace to our minds. That’s what I hope to give you forever.”

— The Notebook

 

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Here Come The Nativists


By

Bush-Appointed Judge, Hand-Picked By Anti-Immigrant Activists, Rules Against President Obama’s Immigration Actions

Late last night, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security from implementing President Obama’s deferred action immigration directives. The ruling did not come as a surprise to most observers; Hanen has a history of extremist anti-immigrant decisions.

The bad news is that the judge’s deeply flawed ruling will delay implementation of common-sense measures designed to focus limited enforcement resources on felons, not families (bear in mind this does not affect the existing DACA). The good news, however, is that the decision is only a temporary setback; the judicial process will move beyond Judge Hanen to higher courts. And with extensive jurisprudence pointing toward the fact that the President has the legal authority to act, we are confident that his directives will be deemed constitutional and will be fully implemented.

Here are three key points to know and remember in this case:

1. This is a partisan political attack disguised as a lawsuit. In December, governors and attorneys general from 26 states sued the government to block the DHS directives from going in to effect. Every single governor that signed onto the lawsuit, and all but one of the attorneys general, were Republicans.

What’s more, it is no accident that Judge Haren was the judge selected to rule on the lawsuit. The plaintiffs, led by now-Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX), shopped around for a judge they knew to be sympathetic to their anti-immigrant cause.

2. Judge Hanen’s ruling is not the final decision in the case. The Department of Justice will immediately appeal the judge’s decision and apply for a stay of the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. At this point, that can go in two possible directions.

  • The 5th Circuit grants the requested stay, and implementation of the directives will continue while the court considers the merits of the plaintiffs’ case.
  • The 5th Circuit denies the stay request and the temporary injunction remains in effect, further delaying the implementation of the DACA expansion and DAPA programs.

In either situation, a decision on the requested stay should take place within a couple of weeks, while the ruling on the underlying legality of the directives will likely take several months. In the meantime, immigrants who would have been eligible to request deferred action under these directives will not be agency enforcement priorities and should not be removed.

3. We are confident that President Obama’s directives are legal, and that they will proceed. Lawsuits against similar executive action have failed in the past, including a 2012 Mississippi challenge of the DACA program, and an effort by an anti-immigrant Sheriff challenging executive action that was struck down in court in December of last year. More than 130 legal scholars from across the political spectrum wrote a letter to the president urging him to take executive action, and laying out the broad legal authority for taking executive action on immigration. These scholars reaffirmed the legality of the DHS directives after they were announced in late-November.

BOTTOM LINE: Last night’s anti-immigrant ruling by an anti-immigrant federal judge in southern Texas is temporary and an aberration. This judge’s ruling is just another piece of a cynical, partisan strategy to break families apart and oppose the President’s policies at all costs. Legal precedent from Supreme Court rulings and similar lawsuits in the past — not to mention the views of more than one hundred legal experts — demonstrates that ultimately, President Obama’s immigration action and the directives from the Department of Homeland Security will be upheld as constitutional.