Tag Archives: public

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Writing the rules for 21st century trade


whitehouselogo

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.

Watch this video my team put together, and then share it with anyone who needs to know exactly what’s at stake.

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

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

3 Key Takeaways From The King v. Burwell Oral Arguments


By

Key Moments From Oral Arguments Bode Well For The Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell today, the latest partisan threat to the Affordable Care Act that threatens to strip subsidies away from millions of Americans in more than three dozen states. While the arguments presented by the lawyers and the questioning from the Justices certainly don’t give us the answer to how the case will turn out, they do provide an early indication of how the Justices may be leaning in their decision. With that in mind, we wanted to highlight three key points from the oral arguments today that could indicate that the subsidies for millions of Americans — and by extension Obamacare as a whole — will be safe when the ruling is handed down in June. For more in-depth analysis be sure to read Think Progress Justice editor Ian Millhiser’s complete analysis.

1. Justice Anthony Kennedy was concerned about what the consequences of a ruling for the challengers would mean. At one point during the arguments, Kennedy, always a potential swing Justice, acknowledged the reality that states would face if tax credits are cut off in states with federally run exchanges: premiums would spike, healthy people would drop out of the marketplace, and a so-called “death spiral” of higher premiums for fewer, sicker customers would ensue. An interpretation of the law that forces states to choose between setting up their own exchanges and eliminated tax credits raises “a serious constitutional problem,” Kennedy said.

2. The Justices got the challengers to admit that context matters. It may seem obvious that context matters — but this is actually somehow a critical debate in a legal argument where the challengers case rests on reading a single clause in place of the clear meaning of the entire law. After a nifty hypothetical from Justice Kagan, Michael Carvin, the attorney for the challengers, responded to “implore” the Justices to make their decision taking into account “the context of the Act as a whole.””

3. For any indication of momentum outside the courtroom, look no farther than right outside the Supreme Court steps. Hundreds of ACA supporters turned out to rally in support of the law and urging the court to protect health care for millions of Americans; meanwhile, just a handful of opponents thought it important enough to show up. The Washington Post writes, “If good organization could win a legal debate, supporters of the Affordable Care Act would triumph.”

CAP-DontTakeMyCare-3-4

Take a look at some of the best signs from the rally:

kvbpic2

kvbpic3

kvbpic1

And if that’s not enough, check out the spate of editorials in support of the law from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Tampa Bay Times, Kansas City Star, Dallas Morning News, Knoxville New Sentinel … (shall we go on? Yes we shall) … Albany Times Union, Orlando Sentinel, Bangor Daily News, and the Toledo Blade.

BOTTOM LINE: We’ve known from the beginning that this challenge to the Affordable Care Act is a politically-motivated, legally weak attack from those trying to use the Court to do what they have been unable to do in Congress or at the ballot box: repeal the Affordable Care Act. After today’s oral arguments, we hope the Justices will see that as well and make a decision that upholds the law, and doesn’t savage the reputation of the court. Momentum is with us.

 

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Southern Rites: The Heartbreaking Story of Justin Patterson’s Death


Wh<i>Best viewed in full screen mode</i><br>Julie and Bubba, 2002en Gillian Laub started photographing the racially divided town of Mount Vernon, Ga. — with its segregated homecomings and proms — she stumbled onto the story of Justin Patterson, a 22-year-old black man who was killed, on Jan. 29, 2011, by Norman Neesmith, a 62-year-old white man.

posted in Time

Patterson’s story, which further divided Mount Vernon, is the subject of Southern Rites, a HBO documentary premiering on May 18.

Dedee Clarke, Justin’s mother, spoke to TIME.

In HBO’s Southern Rites, photographer Gillian Laub goes to Mount Vernon, Ga., a racially divided town

Gillian Laub:Sha’von, Justin and Santa, 2012

“When I got the call, it was around 3.45 in the morning and my youngest son, Sha’von, said that Justin had been shot and he was dead… For a long time, Sha’von wouldn’t talk about it, he would only tell me things in bits and pieces. It wasn’t until 2013 that he told me the whole story. I think that the thing that bothered him the most was that the gun was actually aimed at him. Justin looked back, saw that and pushed Sha’von out of the way and took the shot himself. It’s something I don’t think he’ll really recover from. He just has to learn to live with it. It’s a day-by-day process, but I don’t think anybody can ever be the same.

The first time I met Gillian was in 2010. My youngest son, Sha’von, was attending the prom that year, and she was photographing it. I thought the work she was doing was great. But I didn’t know that much about her, I just knew that the pictures that she was taking were important. I didn’t get to know her on a deeper level until my son, Justin, died.

[When Gillian shifted her focus to what had happened to Justin], I was, at first, a little reluctant. But I could just see her passion and drive as she talked to me and I knew at that point that she really cared. I was more relaxed around her and I began to open up. But I just remember saying that it wasn’t going to be pretty sight because I was just not in the right state of mind, and she understood that.

You have to feel some kind of compassion when you do this. And Gillian had that; she felt it. And because she felt it, I believed that shows in her work.

Of course, it was very difficult to see Norman Neesmith in Gillian’s film. I had always made it a point not to really look directly at him. And to see him up close and personal in the film, it was very hard. It was hard to watch some of the things that he said. It’s just hard to hear that he never really acknowledged that his daughter invited them into his home. I felt that he thought he was a victim. I don’t think he understands that Justin had a life. He had a daughter. And she will never have her father.

Gillian’s work makes me feel that my son’s death was not in vain. That’s the one thing that I can hope for. I’m hoping that it will help someone. It’s too late for my son, but maybe it can help somebody else.

I’m hoping it will help other mothers to see that you can still survive that kind of pain and. I’m a survivor because God says I am. Everything that I believe in is because of God. He’s the reason that I’m here because there’s no way I could have done any of this by myself. I felt like nobody really cared because the story wasn’t out. It was a while before it was even in a paper. To see it now and to know that people really care, it does make me feel supported. It definitely does. I’m thinking that everyone will have an idea of what happened. This is real life. These people are real people; they feel that pain continuously every day.

My goal here is for people to know and understand that there’s still, very much so, a lot of injustice in this world and something has to be done about it.”

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

The Latest GOP Health Care Ploy


By

a repost

The GOP “Alternative” To The ACA Is A Political Ploy, Not A Real Plan

News broke last night of a health care proposal from a group of influential Republicans. Mainstream media outlets from The New York Times to The Washington Post billed it as an “alternative to Obamacare” and the GOP’s plan to “repeal and replace” the law. While that is certainly what the GOP would like the public to think, those evaluations are misleading and incorrect. In fact, this is not a real plan, but rather a political ploy to influence the Supreme Court in their upcoming decision in King v. Burwell .

Let’s take the so-called “alternative” on its face. First of all, three people writing an op-ed and a memo is not a plan to replace a law that is working and providing benefits and protections to hundreds of millions of Americans, including nearly 10 million Americans who have obtained quality, affordable coverage through the marketplaces.

Second, the contents of the proposal demonstrate that its not a serious alternative, because it will dramatically increase costs for lower-income people who can least afford care. The proposal has no essential health benefits, no minimum plan value, no out of pocket limits, no subsidies for cost sharing, and meager tax credits. It would eliminate the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and gut the pre-existing Medicaid program, leaving millions of low-income people currently covered by Medicaid uninsured. And it would go back to the days where insurers could charge women more than men.

Third, we’ve heard this tune before. GOP leaders have promised their own replacement plans dozens of times, and in none of those circumstances has the party passed one of them — let alone voted on, held hearings for, or even coalesced around one. After five years of promises, there is no reason to think that this time will be any different.

Ultimately, factoring in the context of the current health care debate is where the true strategy of Republicans in Congress becomes clear. As the Supreme Court considers the latest attack on the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell, opponents of the law are convinced that the high court will be more likely to strike it down if they have a replacement plan at the ready to mitigate the chaos and meltdown of the health care system. One of the intellectual architects of the 2012 Supreme Court challenge to the ACA has shared the belief that the justices would be more likely to rule against the law if they knew there would a “viable alternative.” And since Republicans have shut down the option of an easy legislative fix if it were necessary, that means they need to create the aura that there’s something else.

Regardless of whatever proposals House and Senate Republicans want to talk about, the fact is that the fate of the health care system rests solely in the hands of nine Supreme Court Justices. To reject the government’s defense of the law, which was commonly accepted just a few years ago by many of the current opponents, would cripple the high court’s reputation as an institution above politics. As Linda Greenhouse writes in a must-read opinion piece for the New York Times, “overturning Obamacare would change the nature of the Supreme Court.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has said it would be a “stunning act of judicial overreach.”

BOTTOM LINE: The latest GOP health care proposal is just another tactic to accomplish what has been the party’s real goal for years: to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have not been able to do it electorally or legislatively, so now they are turning to the Courts. No amount of political posturing from congressional Republicans is going to change the very real stakes facing the Supreme Court justices. A ruling for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would not only fly in the face of the ACA and legal precedent, but the entire U.S. health care system and the millions of Americans benefiting from the ACA — click here to see the profiles of several of them.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Cracks In The Big Money Wall


By

Two Small But Significant Steps To Make Elections Better Took Place This Week

There are two big pieces of election news this week out of Florida, known for its historically torrid election administration. The Supreme Court, following a string of rulings unleashing big money into politics, has finally found a small but significant campaign finance law that it is willing to uphold. Meanwhile, earlier this week, the Florida legislature passed a bill that would finally bring online voter registration to the state — should Gov. Rick Scott sign the bill. The decision and the law together augur a better approach to election administration in Florida and across the country.

In Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign solicitation bans for judicial candidates are constitutional. This follows years of decisions where the Court facilitated the rise of big money in our politics, seven times since 2006. In the 5-4 decision, conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the four liberal-leaning justices, arguing that “Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” and therefore they “cannot supplicate campaign donors without diminishing public confidence in judicial integrity.

Unfortunately, Roberts’ decision did not go far enough. While he acknowledged that campaign contributions to judicial officials could give off the “appearance of corruption,” Roberts contained his opinion to the judiciary. This flies in the face of what we have seen in our elections, as big money’s influence has only increased thanks to Roberts’ Court especially since Citizens United. Ian Millhiser, editor of ThinkProgress Justice, broke down why Roberts’ reasoning is flawed:

Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not “follow the preferences” of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not “provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency. Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should “follow the preferences” of their supporters and give “special consideration” to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.

As Justice Ginsburg noted in her concurring opinion, “Numerous studies [including some by CAP!] report that the money pressure groups spend on judicial elections ‘can affect judicial decision-making across a broad range of cases.’” It is inconceivable that big money in non-judicial elections would not have the same effect. The public understands that, which is why they have consistently shown that they are against the rising tide of big money in politics. According to one recent poll, 61 percent of voters oppose the Citizens United decision that ushered in this latest wave of big money politics.

This decision is only the latest demonstration of the importance of our court systems. For more information on the importance of our courts and how we can leverage them to create true progressive change, go to WhyCourtsMatter.org.

Although imperfect, hopefully this momentum on making our election system better for everyone will extend into Florida’s battle over online voter registration. Florida’s Republican-controlled House and Senate passed important legislation that would require online voter registration in the state by October 2017. As shown in over twenty other states that allow online voter registration, registering online is “more accurate, less expensive and a convenience to voters.” Despite the overwhelming evidence, Governor Rick Scott was previously reported to be working to kill the legislation. And his chief election official, Secretary of State Ken Detzner, came out against the bill, oddly claiming that “forces of evil” would sabotage such a system. Online voter registration is good for voters, good for Florida and Governor Scott should bring Florida’s election system into the 21st century by signing this bill into law.

BOTTOM LINE: After a string of poor decisions, and public momentum building for real reform on money in politics, the Supreme Court has finally taken steps, however late and limited, to stem the corrosive effects that big money has in our politics, at least in the judiciary. The Florida law behind the decision is an important piece of ensuring the integrity of the judiciary. But Florida can do even more to strengthen their election system, and Scott should take the opportunity to do so by bringing voter registration into the 21st century.