Tag Archives: stimulus

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

A Tale of Two Recoveries


By

Recession-Era Austerity Has Led to Weak Public Jobs Growth And Fragile Economic Recovery

Today’s job report brought positive news: the economy added 280,000 jobs and wages grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent. This month marks six years since the end of the Great Recession, but the economy still has significant recovering to do. The graphic below shows that while the private sector is recovering, austerity remains a major drag on job growth.

JobsDay_June

(Para verlo en español clique aquí)

According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, slow growth in public sector employment is dragging down our overall economic recovery. Washington’s self-imposed budget sequestration and strict austerity measures at the state and local level have contributed to slow public sector growth, and as a result we have fewer public school teachers, poorly maintained infrastructure, and higher tuition at public universities.

On the other hand, the private sector has enjoyed robust growth since the end of the recession. Between June 2009 and May 2015, the private sector added 11.4 million jobs, while the public sector lost some 559,000 state and local government jobs over the same period. Budget cuts have reduced the number of teachers, bus drivers, firefighters and police officers, to name just a few. At this stage in the recovery, the public sector isn’t keeping up with the needs of our growing population, and the shortfall of public sector employees not only highlights this deficit, but also slows down our recovery.

BOTTOM LINE: Reinvesting in public sector employment would create reliable, good-paying, middle-class jobs and help speed up our economic recovery. Rather than continue down the damaging path of sequestration, which reduces the federal government’s ability to respond to the struggling economy, Congress should be doing more to invest in the economy and support state and local government functions that are essential to the lives of everyday Americans.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

The EPA ignored its own science?


Union of Concerned Scientists

The EPA ignored its own scientists on water contamination.

UCS members need to make sure federal agencies put science and safety ahead of politics.

Be one of 750 new donors needed this month to keep our campaigns strong.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exists to protect our environment and keep our land, water, air, and health safe.

But when the EPA’s own scientists found evidence that fracking was contaminating water, the EPA stopped or slowed down its scientists’ work in three states.1

Why would the EPA back away from its own science?

Simple. Fierce pressure from industry and politicians interfering at every step—from a former Democratic governor reportedly hired by drilling industries to pressure the agency, to a U.S. Senator delaying scientists by demanding constant financial reports, even asking how many dollars were spent on individual lab tests.2

As the fracking boom continues, the EPA can expect even more interference. We can’t sit by and watch. We’re looking for 750 new UCS members to stand up this month to help counter misinformation, demand accountability, protect whistleblowers, and defend our health.

Become a UCS member now.

The future of fracking isn’t our only concern. UCS members are standing up for science on multiple fronts:

Stopping the attacks on clean vehicles. The Obama administration has proposed aggressive reductions in vehicle pollutants, but the oil and gas industry is trying to stall them, spreading misinformation about the costs of cleaner fuels.3 UCS’s efforts have already generated more than 50,000 letters this year to the EPA and Congress from members and supporters on the issue.

Fighting back against Big Coal. Coal companies and Fox News are up in arms about the Obama administration’s proposed carbon standards, which would finally retire most of the oldest coal-fired plants. As climate deniers spread misinformation about a “War on Coal,” UCS members and experts are spreading the facts about clean energy’s environmental and economic benefits—while pushing the Obama Administration to stand strong.4

We’re also making waves with our groundbreaking Ripe for Retirement report, which makes the economic case for closing 353 coal-fired power plants. Since November, when we released our first report, 45 plants already have been slated for closure—we’re on the right track!

Whether it’s fracking, vehicle pollution, or coal, the Obama Administration and the EPA are often ready to do the right thing—but they need vocal support from scientists and the public at large. They need people like you to refute lies from the fossil fuel industry and fact-denying politicians. They need you to counteract the millions of dollars being spent to convince the public that a future with clean energy isn’t possible.

Carmen, we need 750 people to stand up for transparency, accountability, and the sound use of science before September 30. Become a member now.

Help make sure all of our leaders—friend and foe—put science first in the national conversation about our energy and our health.

Thank you for being such a strong advocate for science—and for recommitting yourself with a gift to UCS today.

Kathleen Rest Sincerely,
Kathleen Rest
Kathleen Rest, PhD, MPA
Executive Director

1. http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many
2. Ibid.
3. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17518351-epa-proposes-tighter-fuel-emissions-standards-could-push-price-of-gas-higher?lite
4. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/25/obama-declares-war-on-coal/

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

85 years!? Iain Keith – Avaaz
Dear friends,
This weekend seven of the most powerful nations will meet at the annual G7 summit and Angela Merkel, who is hosting it, just announced climate is the priority and she’ll propose they commit to a deadline to get completely off fossil fuels.This is HUGE! Weeks ago we heard climate was not even going to be on the agenda. So Avaaz German members showed up at practically every major event calling on her to be a global climate hero with such creative stunts that we got her attention. And now she has stepped up, and France has got in behind her.

The problem now is Japan and Canada want the G7 to wait 85 years to get off fossil fuels, even though they know that only gives us a 66% chance to avoid climate catastrophe!

We have just four days to stop them, and experts say the best way is calling them out in the media and shaming them publicly for scuttling the entire global climate deal, and literally putting humanity’s survival at risk.

So here’s what we are aiming to do, fast — run newspaper and TV ads and opinion polls that show they are out of touch with the public, then welcome them to Germany with killer stunts. If we do this well Merkel will have new arguments to get them on board.
~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Raising the Stakes for Health Care


By

Another Successful Enrollment Report Underscores Importance Of Upcoming Supreme Court Ruling

More than 10.2 million people purchased insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act in the most recent sign-up period, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services announced yesterday. That number beats the 2015 goal of 9.1 million enrollees previously set by the Obama administration.

The millions of people enrolling and re-enrolling in plans through the insurance exchanges highlights once again that the ACA is working to deliver quality, affordable health care to those who need it. But it also serves as a stark reminder of the stakes surrounding the ruling in King v. Burwell that the Supreme Court is expected to hand down later this month.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers from the latest successful enrollment report, and what could happen if at least five Supreme Court Justices ignore the overwhelming evidence and strike down insurance subsidies for individuals on the federal exchange.

  • 10.2 million: The number of Americans who have enrolled in quality, affordable coverage through the ACA’s marketplaces.
  • 85 percent: The percentage of all enrollees receiving tax credits for their insurance premiums — 8.7 million people.
  • 87 percent: The percentage of enrollees in the 34 states with federally-facilitated marketplaces receiving premium tax credits — 6.4 million people.
  • $272: The average monthly tax credit for the 6.4 million enrollees in states with federally-facilitated marketplaces.
  • 287 percent: The percent increase in enrollees’ average premium if the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell.

There are 6.4 million Americans who get insurance through HealthCare.gov (instead of a state-run marketplace) and qualify for tax subsidies to help them afford their coverage. Those people receive an average of $272 per month, scaled according to their income, to help them pay. A bad decision in King v. Burwell would remove that subsidy, almost tripling their premiums on average (for some, premiums could spike more than six times the amount they currently pay. A huge number of these people, no longer able to afford coverage, would become uninsured.

But they wouldn’t be the only ones affected. Such a shock to the marketplace would ricochet out and put the entire health insurance system into chaos, causing millions of others to see premiums increase and force health insurance to become unaffordable. All told, according to several studies, more than 8 million people would become uninsured and nearly 10,000 preventable deaths would occur each year.

Couldn’t Congress step in and help correct a terrible Supreme Court decision? That would be the responsible course of action, but we aren’t betting on it. With more than 50 votes to repeal the law, Republican Congressional leaders have been destructive, not constructive. And while conservatives continue to promise a “replacement” plan for the Affordable Care Act, they haven’t proposed any credible alternatives — all of them take us back to the broken system we had before. There’s no reason to expect that to change.

BOTTOM LINE: While we should all cheer another strong enrollment report showcasing the success of the Affordable Care Act, the stakes are only rising for the potential effects of a negative decision in King v. Burwell. Insurance coverage for millions of people hangs in the balance, and the Republican Congress is not offering any serious solutions for them if the Supreme Court chooses ideology over the facts.

~ 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.