Letter to Sen. McCain

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) speaks during a press conference about his resistance to the so-called "Skinny Repeal" of the Affordable Care Act on Capitol Hill in Washington
From Max Plesset MD (Springs, East Hampton)
Dear Senator McCain,
I have always respected your independence, judgement and thoughtful decision making. Now you have a serious malignancy and I am sorry for that. Undoubtedly you are receiving the best of care that the American health system has to offer. However, it is clear that the Graham-Cassidy bill will jeopardize the kind of care you are getting for a large number of our citizens and your constituents in Arizona. By transferring most if not all of the current federal health care dollars to block grants to the states many people, especially medicaid patients, will be at the mercy of the state spending priorities. Please uphold your integrity as you did before by voting no on this bill. Thank you for considering my email.
to send email to Sen. McCain:
Posted in AHCA, Health Care, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood, Pre-existing Conditions, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Oceans in Peril

Title image from Oceans of Acid.

By Judith S. Weis  OpEd in the East Hampton Star Sept. 14, 2017

While some politicians claim that climate change is a hoax, and climate scientists try to refine their models and forecasts of exactly how much warming will take place in the next few decades, marine scientists can see clearly the evidence of what has already happened.

Everyone has heard about melting glaciers and dying coral reefs, but climate change is doing something else that is equally dangerous. The oceans absorb about a third of the carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels. In one way that’s good, because it slows down the warming, but it is making the seawater more acidic. CO2 in the ocean combines with water to form carbonic acid and makes the water more acidic — in fact 30 percent more acidic in recent decades.

This affects marine animals; the most severe effect is impairing shell formation in animals with calcium carbonate shells, such as clams and mussels. This has already occurred: In the Pacific Northwest, oyster larvae in hatcheries are unable to make their shells properly. Tiny planktonic snails are showing eroded shells. Acidified water poses an additional stress to corals already suffering from rising temperatures. Another effect is on behavior. Acidified waters impair the sense of smell of fish, causing them to be unable to find their home reef and to move toward, rather than away from, the odor of a predator.

Another reason global warming has not been too bad yet is because the ocean absorbs most of the earth’s excess heat. But oceans are warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, half of the increase in ocean heat content since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades. Warmer water holds less oxygen, but the respiration rate of animals (except for marine mammals) increases with temperature, so they need more oxygen at the same time that less is available. A warmer ocean has less turnover (vertical water movements), which normally brings nutrient-rich water up from deep water to the plankton that photosynthesize near the surface. With fewer nutrients, they photosynthesize less and animals can’t get enough food.

Many species are moving north to find more suitable environments, including species of commercial importance. Lobsters are disappearing from Long Island and southern New England, but increasing in the Gulf of Maine and Canada. Commercial catches are regulated by regional management agencies, but now these animals are fewer where they had been, and are increasing in places where they weren’t important before.

The most dramatic responses to warming oceans are in corals. When stressed, corals eject the single-celled symbiotic algae that live in their tissues, which normally photosynthesize and provide the coral with most of its nutrition. When they are ejected, the coral is “bleached” and appears white. While they can still get some nutrition by catching plankton with their tentacles, most species get less than half of their nutrition this way, so if the stress persists and zooxanthellae do not return, corals die. About 30 percent of the Great Barrier Reef of Australia died in 2016-17. This is devastating not only for the corals, but also for the thousands of other species that depend on the reef, including humans, who depend on it for $6 billion in tourism revenue annually. An excellent documentary about this tragedy, called “Chasing Coral,” is available on Netflix.

Major changes are occurring in the polar regions, where the extent of sea ice is diminishing rapidly. As ice melts, the water gets fresher and normal algal blooms diminish, providing less food at the bottom of the food chain on which the rest of the ecosystem depends. Some species that rely on sea ice, like Adelie penguins in Antarctica and polar bears in the Arctic, are in trouble.

Closer to home, sea level rise is one effect that is apparent in coastal regions. Sea level rise results from water expanding when it warms plus addition of new water from melting glaciers. It is happening faster than was predicted. Increased flooding from storms is common, and many areas (e.g., South Florida) have flooded streets even on sunny days. Since much of the world’s population lives in coastal areas, threats to human lives and well-being are becoming apparent.

In Bristol Bay, Alaska, the ability of local communities to access subsistence resources is impaired. Changes in the timing of ice freeze and melt are affecting safety, making it difficult to travel to neighboring villages and in some cases causing loss of life. Residents of some small low-lying Pacific islands have already moved elsewhere, and such “climate refugees” will increase in the future, which can cause political and social problems. Despite this, the Trump administration has recently undone a regulation that required that development near the coast take sea level rise into consideration, to reduce the risk of future damage.

Natural communities are also at risk. Coastal salt marshes in the intertidal zone are very important ecosystems that reduce storm surge and winds, absorb pollutants, and provide habitat for a variety of crabs, shrimp, fishes, birds, and mammals. In the face of rising seas, marshes must either increase their elevation or move inland. Increase in elevation results from new sediments being deposited and organic matter accumulation from marsh plants. Many marshes in the Northeast do not have adequate input of new sediments to increase their elevation, so moving back is the only option. (The marshes in Accabonac Harbor are increasing with sediments but not organic matter from plants, and have not been keeping up with sea level rise over the past decade.)

In developed regions, there are roads, sidewalks, etc., immediately inland, so there is no place for the marshes to go. Subject to “coastal squeeze,” many marshes that protect us from storm surge and winds will disappear. Recently, the East Hampton Town Board very wisely used the community preservation fund to buy some properties adjacent to marshes to allow for migration.

Another component of forecasted climate change is increased rainfall in the Northeast. This will intensify the nitrogen problem in estuaries, since more rain means more runoff and nitrogen going into the water. Much of our local nitrogen problem is due primarily to leaching from septic systems, but the expansive green lawns in the Hamptons suggest there is a lot of fertilizer runoff also. Warmer water in the future will also accelerate algal blooms.

What can be done? We need rapid decreases in emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. While governmental actions are vital, and it is important to keep up the pressure on elected officials to do more, collectively individuals can make a difference. Examine your “carbon footprint.” Does your car use a lot of gas? Next time, buy a hybrid or electric. Do you drive short distances that you could walk or bike or take public transportation? How high is your electric bill? Could you keep your house a bit warmer in the summer and a bit cooler in the winter to save energy?

I am surprised and saddened to see so few houses around here with solar panels. Solar technology has improved greatly and the price has gone down. Could you eat less meat and more vegetables? Animal agriculture, especially beef, creates a huge amount of greenhouse gases. Studies indicate that the most important thing you can do — if you are still in a position to do this — is reduce the number of children you have.

All these actions will make the quality of life better for the children and grandchildren you do have.


Judith S. Weis is a professor emerita at Rutgers University. She has a house in Springs.

Posted in Environment, Paris Climate Accord, science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Graham Cassidy Obamacare Repeal Bill May Pass

Senator says Obamacare repeal bill close to enough votes to pass, but there’s reason to be skeptical

  • The Graham-Cassidy bill would strip away $80 billion in federal funding support for health coverage.
  • Prior bills that were likewise expected to lead to big increases in the number of uninsured Americans failed in the Senate.
  • Obamacare defenders started rallying Thursday to defeat the latest bill.

Senator says Obamacare repeal bill close to enough votes to pass, but there's reason to be skeptical

Senator says Obamacare repeal bill close to enough votes to pass, but there’s reason to be skeptical. A leading Senate sponsor of another bill that seeks to repeal and replace key parts of Obamacare claimed Friday that it has almost enough votes from fellow Republicans to pass. But the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill continues to face the same kind of hurdles that doomed previous GOP efforts in the Senate to undo major provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

 

And there is a new hurdle: Republicans have just 15 days to pass the bill under the reconciliation process being used to grease the skids for repeal of the ACA.

That is a very tight procedural timeline — but the chance that it can be done led Obamacare supporters to mobilize Thursday.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La, told reporters that the bill now has the support of up to 48 or 49 Republicans. That is just one vote shy of the 50 senators that the bill needs to win passage, given that Vice President Mike Pence would break any tie in his fellow Republicans’ favor.

 

“I’m confident we’ll get there on the Republican side,” Cassidy said, according to the Washington Examiner. “People are coming out and saying they are for it, either publicly or privately.”

“Talking to a few more,” Cassidy said, according to Vox.com

But similar optimistic comments by other senators in recent months about the prospects of previous Obamacare repeal bills have been proven wrong, badly.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in July dramatically voted no against a last-ditch, early morning effort by the GOP to pass a version of repeal.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Tenn., had voted for that prior bill. But the libertarian Paul on Friday cast cold water on the Graham-Cassidy bill.

Graham-Cassidy also could face the same opposition from two moderate Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, that with McCain’s vote doomed late July’s bill.

The latest bill, released Wednesday, would eliminate Obamacare’s requirement that most Americans have some kind of health insurance or face a fine, and that large employers offer affordable health coverage to workers or pay a penalty.

And it would wipe out Obamacare funds that now subsidize the purchase of private health plans by millions of low- and middle-income people, and eliminate the expansion of Medicaid benefits to millions of poor adults.

In its place, Graham-Cassidy would award individual states block grants of money to craft their own health insurance system. But net federal spending related to support of health coverage would drop by many billions of dollars.

The bill has yet to receive an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Previous CBO “scores” of the other Obamacare repeal bills found that they would lead to 20 million or more people lacking health insurance by 2026.

That big number spooked several GOP senators, and led to a widespread public backlash against the bills.

Graham-Cassidy is likely to receive a similar, or perhaps even worse CBO score in terms of the number of newly uninsured, given its design.

In an analysis posted Wednesday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote that the bill “would have the same harmful consequences as those prior bills.”

“It would cause many millions of people to lose coverage, radically restructure and deeply cut Medicaid, and increase out-of-pocket costs for individual market consumers,” said the liberal think tank.

CBPP also noted that there would be an $80 billion reduction in the amount of federal money spent nationally on insurance support, and published a chart detailing the funding losses per state.

Despite that, defenders of Obamacare were taking very seriously the chance that the bill could pass, and sought to remobilize the kind of public opposition that helped defeat prior bills.

Among them was Andy Slavitt, who ran the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Barack Obama.

Brad Woodhouse, director of the Protect our Care Campaign, in an email Friday blasted the Graham-Cassidy bill, but noted Republicans “are only a handful of votes away from passing it.”

“Given Republicans will have to ram this partisan repeal bill through the Senate in the next two weeks in order to meet this September 30 deadline there will be no time for a regular process for the public to fully understand the impacts on their health care — with no time for adequate hearings, consultations with experts, constituent input, and amendments,” Woodhouse wrote.

“Republicans in the Senate are resorting back to a secret, partisan process to force through health care repeal out of public view. The American people need to know the facts about how this bill will impact them. ”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., also took to Twitter to rally people to oppose the bill.

If the GOP does not pass the Graham-Cassidy bill, it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to approve any Obamacare repeal legislation before the midterm elections in 2018.

That fact could add some momentum to the latest repeal effort.

 

SENATORS TO CALL/OR EMAIL:

JOHN MCAIN  ph: (928) 445-0833.   https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

LISA MURKOWSKI  https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/contact/email

SUSAN COLLINS   https://www.collins.senate.gov/contact

Posted in ACA, AHCA, Health Care, Pre-existing Conditions, trumpcare, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump’s ‘election integrity’ group is waging war on the right to vote

The president’s commission lead by Kris Kobach, a champion of repressive voting laws, could do significant damage to hard-won voting rights

The Guardian

by in Los Angeles 

 

The Trump presidency is opening up a new battlefront in the intense and controversial war over American voting rights. After a decade of wrangling between Democrats who have sought to expand voting opportunities and Republicans who have invoked the specter of voter fraud to restrict them, the focus is now on purging registration lists – even at the risk of kicking large numbers of eligible voters off the rolls.

Both Trump’s justice department and his newly formed Presidential Commission on Election Integrity are involved in broad data collection and new policy proposals to “clean up” the voter rolls in ways that critics fear will have a disproportionate impact on blacks, Latinos and newly naturalized citizens.

 

The justice department (DoJ) has also begun issuing legal opinions to support states that have passed restrictive new voting rules, even when they appear to contradict existing federal law. Voting rights activists say these efforts are kicking voter suppression into a higher gear at a time when federal courts are ruling that a flurry of strict new voter ID laws in several Republican-run states discriminateagainst minority voters and college students.

“There are three major aspects of the voting process – getting registered, making sure you stay registered, and actually voting – and in all three areas we are seeing efforts to suppress the vote,” said Ezra Rosenberg, a voting rights specialist with the Lawyer’s Committee on Human Rights Under Law.

The commission, chaired by vice-president Mike Pence but spearheaded by its vice-chair, Kris Kobach, an ardent champion of repressive voting laws in his native Kansas, has made few public declarations of intent except to ask states in late June for exhaustive information on individual voters. The move led to immediate pushback from the states and from a former Department of Homeland Security chief who said the information could pose a cybersecurity threat.

Donald Trump and Kris Kobach at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
Donald Trump and Kris Kobach at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Photograph: The Washington Post/Getty Images

The panel held a livestreamed session in July, but only just held its first fully public session last week. Kobach told reporters afterwards that the commission had received data from 20 states so far but was characteristically guarded, even coy, about what he intended to do with it. “[The commission] may make recommendations, or I think at this point there’s a high possibility the commission makes no recommendations and they just say, ‘Here’s the data. States, do with it what you want.’”

Still, voting rights experts and election lawyers are in little doubt what Kobach would like to do. He has made numerous public statements – including in a paid column he writes for Breitbart News – tantamount to a wish list. It includes:

  • A “proof of citizenship” requirement for voter registration, which was highly controversial and eventually struck down by the federal courts when Kobach tried it in Kansas ahead of the 2016 election.
  • An expansion of an interstate crosscheck system, despite evidence that it erroneously flags legitimate voters hundreds of times more often than it does actual fraudulent voters casting ballots in more than one state in the same election.
  • Comparing voter lists with a database of enrollees in a federal benefits programfor immigrants as a check against noncitizen voting, even though the database does not track citizenship.
  • A revision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which has repeatedly stood in the way of Kobach’s ambitions in the past.

Taken together, these measures would represent a significant assault on the right to vote and, to judge by Kobach’s record in Kansas, are likely to be tied up in court for years.

Especially frustrating to election managers – of both parties – and voting rights advocates is the fact that Kobach has asserted the existence of problems, like noncitizen voting, that are in fact passingly rare.

Justin Levitt, a former senior official in the DoJ’s civil rights division, now with the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said Kobach had in many cases picked up on legitimate issues and then twisted them to reach “a precooked but half-baked conclusion” about voter fraud on an epidemic scale.

“List maintenance is a little bit like surgery,” Levitt said in an interview. “When it’s done by people with skill and precision tools in a calm environment, it can be tremendously helpful, even life-saving. When it’s done sloppily by people who don’t know what they are doing on a shaky table in a hurry, it can be quite dangerous. What Kobach wants is surgery on a rickety table with a chainsaw.”

Kobach did not respond to an interview request from the Guardian.

To counter the mainstream studies dismissing many of Kobach’s assertions, his supporters have begun generating a research trail of their own. One rightwing thinktank called the Government Accountability Institute (cofounded by Steve Bannon with money from Robert and Rebekah Mercer) recently turned to data companies using questionable fuzzy matching to postulate the existence of more than 8,000 double voters in the 2016 election. (Only a handful of instances of actual double-voting have emerged, on a statistically insignificant scale.)

The study was then cited in an essay for the conservative National Review by Hans von Spakovsky, another member of the presidential commission and a longtime advocate of voter purge lists – including a notorious one he helped craft in Florida that was found by one county to be 95% inaccurate.

A voter wears her voting sticker outside a polling location for the 2016 US presidential election.
A voter wears her voting sticker outside a polling location for the 2016 US presidential election. Photograph: Tracie van Auken/EPA

In some instances, Kobach is pressing issues on which he has already fought and lost. Long before Donald Trump became president, he lobbied hard to use the Save database on immigrant benefits to police voter fraud. But his fellow secretaries discovered the organization’s records were not systematically updated and did not include any reliable mechanism to separate out individuals with the same name or to determine whether someone had obtained US citizenship.

“Within 10 minutes everyone on the call agreed it would not be a good idea,” said Denise Merrill, Connecticut’s elections chief and a past president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Kobach’s ambition to rewrite the NVRA was first revealed in closeups of a photograph of him carrying a briefing paper into a meeting with then president-elect Trump last December. The NVRA – often known as the Motor-Voter act because it enabled Americans to register to vote when renewing their driver’s licenses – sets strict rules for striking names off voter rolls.

That, however, has not stopped Indiana, the vice-president’s home state, from passing a law authorizing the removal of anyone flagged as a double-voter by the Crosscheck system without following the procedures laid out in the NVRA. That law is now being challenged in court.

Prior to his meeting with Trump, Kris Kobach’s ‘Strategic Plan for First 365 Days’ was visible.
Prior to his meeting with Trump, Kris Kobach’s ‘Strategic Plan for First 365 Days’ was visible. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Nor has it stopped Ohio from continuing to argue, despite a court injunction, that it should be allowed to initiate the removal process based on an individual’s failure to vote in two or more elections. The Obama-era justice department had previously opined that this violated the 1993 law. Now, under Trump, the DoJ has filed a new brief siding with Ohio – a maneuver that has shocked many election lawyers because they do not see any wiggle room in either the language or the law or the intent of the legislators who wrote it. The case is now headed to the supreme court.

It is far from clear how far Kobach will get with his agenda, especially given the scathing reception he has received so far. Earlier this month, an allegation that fraudulent out-of-state voters had swung both the presidential race and a close Senate race in New Hampshire last year prompted the Granite State’s entire congressional delegation to rise up in condemnation.

Still, it may have an impact on public opinion. Polls have consistently shown a majority of Americans believing what they hear from Republican politicians about voter fraud. That, in turn, has been used by Republican politicians as justification enough to push for new restrictive voting laws. In a prescient ruling issued more than a decade ago, the Missouri supreme court warned that “the tactic of shaping public misperception could be used in the future as a mechanism for further burdening the right to vote or other fundamental rights”.

Many observers point out that past presidential commissions on voting have been scrupulously bipartisan and recruited universally recognized experts in their fields. This one, by contrast, appears to be driven largely by one man on a mission to make what Rosenberg, the voting rights specialist, called “fallacious recommendations”.

Last week, an email obtained through a public records request showed that Spakovsky had originally opposed including “mainstream Republicans” or any Democrats at all, for fear that they would guarantee the commission’s “failure”.
That, in turn, suggests an issue of institutional abuse going against the 1972Federal Advisory Committee Act, over and above the concerns about voting integrity.

“There is no need for this commission to be looking into voter fraud,” said Rosenberg, whose group is suing the presidential commission over its work and its lack of transparency. “It should be trying to come up with ways to make it easier for people to vote, not harder for people to vote.”

Posted in GOP, Voter Fraud | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

East Coast Republicans join Dems to lobby Trump against Atlantic oil exploration

McClatchyDC.com

SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 5:15 PM

Posted in Environment, EPA, GOP, Offshore Drilling, Trump | Leave a comment

The Seventeenth Amendment Is Under Attack By The Right

What is the 17th Amendment?

 The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The 17th Amendment removed a firewall of privilege — which is why the Right doesn’t like it

But Does the Amendment  ‘Harm’ the States?

Just after the 2010 election, Justice Antonin Scalia decided to explain the parts of the Constitution he doesn’t like.

“The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously,” Scalia said. “We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the twentieth century.”

A sinister “burst of progressivism” is unconstitutional — and so, Andrew Napolitano of Fox News insists, is the 17th Amendment itself, because it was added “at the height of the progressive era, when the government started telling us how to live.”

Today, far-right dogma insists that popular election of senators marked the end of their mythical Great Republic. Former Sen. Zell Miller explained that “instead of senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds, as they did during the Senate’s greatest era of Clay, Webster and Calhoun, we now have many senators who are mere cat’s paws for the special interests.” George Will wrote in a 2009 column that “the Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate — Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun — and thrived.”

Did the 17th Amendment in some way harm the states?  The answer depends on what you mean by state. If by “California,” say, you mean the people of California, the answer is clearly no. Senators are still elected by state, and still work hard to represent their states on Capitol Hill. Senators consult with governors and state governments and advocate for their interests on the floor. The state governments maintain effective lobbying presences in Washington, and, as a result, general federal statutes often include provisions exempting state governments from their provisions or permitting state governments a significant say in how federal programs are administered. But the legislators don’t call the shots: senators must closely attend to what their people want if they want re-election. And special interests spend freely to influence elections, but it’s harder to tip a hundred thousand votes than to buy a hundred politicians.

When the far right says the 17th Amendment harmed “the states,” they mean it harmed state governments. But the state governments are not “the state”; they are simply another institutional player in our complex federal scheme.  The “state,” properly considered, is the people of the state. Who is the best judge of the people’s interests — the state legislative majority or the people themselves?

Properly viewed, governments do not have “rights.” A right is a prerogative that an individual can exercise exactly as he wishes. When you exercise your right to free speech, you can say silly things, or smart ones, or you can just keep your mouth shut. You aren’t accountable to anyone for the decision.

How can a state government have “rights” in this sense?  Should state legislators have the “right” not to approve a budget because they don’t feel like it — or, for that matter, not to elect a Senator because it’s just not convenient this year? State governments, like the federal government, have powers, and they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  Appropriate state powers are actually protected by the Constitution, and by decisions of the Supreme Court. The federal government can offer incentives to state governments, but it cannot reach down and tell a state legislature what to do. Congress does not send representatives to vote in state legislatures; state governments should have no corresponding right to control Congress.

The popular clamor against the 17th Amendment is worth studying.  It shows that much of the “constitutionalism” being peddled to the people is highly selective, and much of the history that supports it, like Will’s fatuous yearning for the “Great Triumvirate,” is a pseudo-patriotic fable.

The real reason the Scalias, Millers, and Wills of this world favor repeal is simply this: a legislatively appointed Senate could be relied on to block progressive legislation. Left to themselves, those idiot people might have another “burst of progressivism.” Right-wing objections to senatorial election (like so much right-wing “constitutionalism”) are a disguised way of saying they want the Constitution to ensure their side never loses a vote.

To hell with that.

Posted in Congress, disenfranchisement, GOP | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Your Coming Tax Increase

Your Coming Tax Increase

President Trump speaking about tax reform at an event in North Dakota on Wednesday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

A 19th-century economist named Adolph Wagner made a prediction that came to be known as Wagner’s Law: As societies became wealthier, their taxes would rise. They would rise because people would want more of the services that government tended to provide better than the private market, like national security, education, medical care and a guaranteed retirement.

Wagner’s Law has proven truer than not, but there are still many people who would like to pretend otherwise. Specifically, they wish we could summon a country with a strong military, good schools, health care and comfortable retirements — but falling taxes. It’s a nice fantasy.

Yesterday, Larry Summers, the economist and former Treasury secretary, gave a lunchtime presentation in Washington laying out the statistics that debunk the falling-taxes fantasy. He effectively updated Wagner’s Law for the United States in 2017.

“With the same values and preferences, and the same basic attitude about government activity versus private activity,” Summers said, “you should expect government to be larger in the future than it has been in the past.”

There are four main reasons, he argued:

• One, society is aging, which calls for greater spending on retirees. The ratio of elderly Americans — those expected to be in the last 15 years of their lives — to all other Americans will rise about 50 percent from 2010 to 2030.

• Two, inequality has soared, with living standards stagnating for the middle class and poor. Taxes push back against inequality.

• Three, labor-intensive services, like education and medical care, have become more expensive, and they also tend to be the areas where the government spends money.

• Four, American military spending has not kept up recently with the spending by our main rivals, including China, Iran and Russia. This trend shouldn’t continue forever, Summers said.

I find his case compelling. Even if you disagree in one particular area — say, you favor more private-sector education, or a weaker military — the combined costs are so large that the argument holds up. That’s part of the reason that taxes on the wealthy should rise, and big tax breaks — like those for home ownership and employer health insurance — should be reduced.
I don’t mean to suggest that taxes should always be rising and that government will eventually take over the economy. Capitalism clearly has worked much better than any alternative. And there are times — for example, after a war or when a population is becoming younger — that taxes should fall. It’s also important to cut government where it’s wasteful.
But believing in capitalism is different from believing that government cannot grow. Modern capitalism depends on a well-functioning government. Capitalism has already grown a lot over the last century, across this country and much of the world, and the world is a vastly richer place than a century ago.
“If we want to maintain traditional American values,” as Summers said, “government will need to be significantly larger.”
For more details on the numbers, I recommend a new paper by Paul van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which hosted Summers’s presentation. I first learned of Wagner’s Law from the writer Matt Miller.
In North Dakota yesterday, President Trump tried his best to summon a magical world in which life keeps getting better and taxes keep falling. His pitch “is divorced from reality,” Katrina vanden Heuvel says in The Washington Post. Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal called the speech a big step away from tax reform and toward a simple tax cut.
Remember: If Trump succeeds in cutting taxes for the wealthy, taxes for everyone else will eventually need to rise even more.
Posted in Tax Reform, Trump, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why do we have Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance?

04up-healthemployer-test-master768

At a community enrollment drive in the 1950s for Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Oklahoma, Ralph Rhoades, left, a manager who later became president of the plan, greeted a new member. Credit Courtesy of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma

The basic structure of the American health care system, in which most people have private insurance through their jobs, might seem historically inevitable, consistent with the capitalistic, individualist ethos of the nation.

In truth, it was hardly preordained. In fact, the system is largely a result of one event, World War II, and the wage freezes and tax policy that emerged because of it. Unfortunately, what made sense then may not make as much right now.

Well into the 20th century, there just wasn’t much need for health insurance. There wasn’t much health care to buy. But as doctors and hospitals learned how to do more, there was real money to be made. In 1929, a bunch of hospitals in Texas joined up and formed an insurance plan called Blue Cross to help people buy their services. Doctors didn’t like the idea of hospitals being in charge, so some in California created their own plan in 1939, which they called Blue Shield. As the plans spread, many would purchase Blue Cross for hospital services, and Blue Shield for physician services, until they merged to form Blue Cross and Blue Shield in 1982.

Most insurance in the first half of the 20th century was bought privately, but few people wanted it. Things changed during World War II.

In 1942, with so many eligible workers diverted to military service, the nation was facing a severe labor shortage. Economists feared that businesses would keep raising salaries to compete for workers, and that inflation would spiral out of control as the country came out of the Depression. To prevent this, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization.

This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers.

Businesses were smart, though, and instead they began to use benefits to compete. Specifically, to offer more, and more generous, health care insurance.

Then, in 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that employer-based health insurance should be exempt from taxation. This made it cheaper to get health insurance through a job than by other means.

After World War II, Europe was devastated. As countries began to regroup and decide how they might provide health care to their citizens, often government was the only entity capable of doing so, with businesses and economies in ruin. The United States was in a completely different situation. Its economy was booming, and industry was more than happy to provide health care.

This didn’t stop President Truman from considering and promoting a national health care system in 1945. This idea had a fair amount of public support, but business, in the form of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed it. So did the American Hospital Association and American Medical Association. Even many unions did, having spent so much political capital fighting for insurance benefits for their members. Confronted by such opposition from all sides, national health insurance failed — for not the first or last time.

In 1940, about 9 percent of Americans had some form of health insurance. By 1950, more than 50 percent did. By 1960, more than two-thirds did.

One effect of this system is job lock. People become dependent on their employment for their health insurance, and they are loath to leave their jobs, even when doing so might make their lives better. They are afraid that market exchange coverage might not be as good as what they have (and they’re most likely right). They’re afraid if they retire, Medicare won’t be as good (they’re right, too). They’re afraid that if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, they might not be able to find affordable insurance at all.

This system is expensive. The single largest tax expenditure in the United States is for employer-based health insurance. It’s even more than the mortgage interest deduction. In 2017, this exclusion cost the federal government about $260 billion in lost income and payroll taxes. This is significantly more than the cost of the Affordable Care Act each year.

Posted in ACA, AHCA, American Health Care Act, Health Care, New York Times, trumpcare, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Zeldin and Cruz: Hurricane Hypocrites

September 8, 2017 3:27 PM
By Rita Ciolli, editor of the Editorial and Opinion pages of Newsday and amNewYork.
image

Rep. Lee Zeldin speaks at Suffolk Community College in Riverhead on Nov. 1, 2016. Photo Credit: Ed Betz

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is not letting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz forget that he voted against aid for those ravaged by superstorm Sandy, calling him a “hurricane hypocrite” now that he is asking for billions of dollars in disaster aid for Texas.
Rep. Peter King, the Seaford Republican, also has not let Cruz forget how he abandoned the New York region in its time of need, causing funding to be delayed for weeks.
“It was cruel, it was vicious, and something that I’ll never forget,” King said this week.
Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin won’t have to wait five years to have the hypocrite label slung at him. In a vote Friday morning, Zeldin — who represents the eastern end of Long Island, one of the most hurricane-vulnerable parts of the nation — was one of 90 House Republicans who voted against a $15.25 billion relief bill for victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Zeldin voted against the funding because it was tied to a three-month extension of the debt ceiling — part of a controversial deal to avoid a government shutdown. The deal, which President Donald Trump worked out with congressional Democrats, led fiscal conservatives like Zeldin into apoplexy. Zeldin later criticized “governing from crisis to crisis.”
While Zeldin remained pure in his ideology, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee saw a massive political blunder. It came out within minutes with an attack on Zeldin, hurling at him an interview he gave The Associated Press earlier this week. Referencing Sandy in 2012, Zeldin said, “People’s lives were hanging in the balance.” He pledged to help Texas, saying, “I am fully, completely committed to do whatever I can . . . to assist.”
Three days later, as Irma approaches Florida and Texas struggles to get back on its feet, Zeldin has followed Cruz into hypocrite hell.
Posted in Environment, Uncategorized, Zeldin | 1 Comment

Zeldin on the Shame List

2012:

Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., was a state senator back in 2012 when Sandy hit.

“People’s lives were hanging in the balance,” he recalled, turning his attention to Texas. “I am fully, completely committed to do whatever I can … to assist.”

Zeldin added, “Regardless of whether you’re a fellow New Yorker or a Texan, we want to be as helpful as possible.”

2017:

As per Brad Johnson <info@climatehawksvote.com>: in the wake of tens of billions of dollars of damage from Hurricane Harvey, 107 members of Congress in the Senate and House—including 4 from Texas—voted “NO” on an aid package to help survivors in the Gulf and to keep FEMA funded.

Their excuse? They wanted to threaten a government shutdown. That’s right, these 107 #HarveyHeartless Republicans are so committed to cutting taxes for billionaire polluters and making the rest of America suffer that they’ll vote against disaster aid.

 

Here is the SHAME LIST:

The 17 GOP Senators who voted against Hurricane Harvey disaster relief:

Jeff Flake & John McCain of Arizona
James Risch of Idaho
Joni Ernst & Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Jerry Moran of Kansas
Rand Paul of Kentucky
Deb Fischer & Ben Sasse of Nebraska
James Lankford of Oklahoma
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania
Lindsay Graham of South Carolina
Bob Corker of Tennessee
Mike Lee of Utah
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin
Michael Enzi of Wyoming

The 90 GOP Representatives who voted against Hurricane Harvey disaster relief:

Bradley Byrne (AL-01)
Martha Roby (AL-02)
Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Gary Palmer (AL-06)
French Hill (AR-02)
Bruce Westerman (AR-04)
Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Andy Biggs (AZ-05)
David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Trent Franks (AZ-08)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Ken Buck (CO-04)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Matt Gaetz (FL-01)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Doug Collins (GA-09)
Jody Hice (GA-10)
Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Randy Hultgren (IL-14)
Darin LaHood (IL-18)
Jackie Walorski (IN-02)
Jim Banks (IN-03)
Todd Rokita (IN-04)
Luke Messer (IN-06)
Trey Hollingsworth (IN-09)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Kevin Yoder (KS-03)
Ron Estes (KS-04)
James Comer (KY-01)
Thomas Massie (KY-04)
Garland “Andy” Barr (KY-06)
Andy Harris (MD-01)
Bill Huizenga (MI-02)
Justin Amash (MI-03)
Tom Emmer (MN-06)
Ann Wagner (MO-02)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
Sam Graves (MO-06)
Billy Long (MO-07)
Jason Smith (MO-08)
Trent Kelly (MS-01)
George Holding (NC-02)
Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
Mark Walker (NC-06)
David Rouzer (NC-07)
Richard Hudson (NC-08)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Ted Budd (NC-13)
Don Bacon (NE-02)
Adrian Smith (NE-03)
Stevan “Steve” Pearce (NM-02)
Lee Zeldin (NY-01)
Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Warren Davidson (OH-08)
Michael Turner (OH-10)
James Renacci (OH-16)
Markwayne Mullin (OK-02)
Steve Russell (OK-05)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Keith Rothfus (PA-12)
Marshall “Mark” Sanford (SC-01)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Ralph Norman Jr. (SC-05)
Kristi Noem (SD-AL)
John “Jimmy” Duncan Jr. (TN-02)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Diane Black (TN-06)
Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
David Kustoff (TN-08)
Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Jeb Hensarling (TX-05)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Robert Wittman (VA-01)
Bob Goodlatte (VA-06)
David “Dave” Brat (VA-07)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
James Sensenbrenner Jr. (WI-05)
Sean Duffy (WI-07)
Mike Gallagher (WI-08)
Alex Mooney (WV-02)
Evan Jenkins (WV-03)
Liz Cheney (WY-AL)

If you want to write Lee Zeldin and give him a piece of your mind:  https://zeldin.house.gov/contact/email

Posted in Environment, Uncategorized, Zeldin | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

No one Above the Law, at Least in Israel

Sara Netanyahu Will Be Indicted For $100K Fraud Scheme


				Bibi and Sara Netanyahu.

The wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Sara, will be indicted on four counts of fraud for allegedly diverting some $100,000 in public funds for her family’s personal use, Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit said.

Mendelblit gave Sara Netanyahu the news Friday, according to Army Radio.

“The attorney general examined the case evidence and reached the decision [to indict Sara Netanyahu] after consulting relevant sources, including the state prosecution and the Jerusalem District Prosecutor’s Office,” read a statement from the attorney general’s office Friday.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s office dismissed the indictment as “absurd and unfounded.”

“Sara Netanyahu is a brave and honest woman,” read a statement posted on his Facebook page. Any financial discrepancy at the Prime Minister’s Residence came from former housekeeper Menny Naftali, described in the statement as “problematic.”

The Netanyahus ended their statement Thursday by alleging that they were the target of an “obsessive” smear campaign.

The most serious of the four charges being brought against Sara Netanyahu involves the hiring of electrician Avi Fahima, a Likud Central Committee member. A committee charged with overseeing residence expenditures — and which included the Prime Minister’s Office legal adviser — ruled against the hiring of Fahima, but he was employed regardless.

Read more: http://forward.com/fast-forward/382172/sara-netanyahu-will-be-indicted-for-100k-fraud-scheme/

 

Does this sound familiar?

 

Posted in Courts, Ethics, GOP, israel, Russian connection, Trump, Uncategorized, Zeldin | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

DeVos to revamp Obama-era schools sexual assault policy

POLITICO 

 

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is pictured.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said the Trump administration will revamp the guidance through a rule-making process that likely will take months. | Jacquelyn Martin/AP

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said Thursday that she will replace an Obama-era schools directive on sexual assault in an attempt to balance the rights of victims and the accused.

“The truth is that the system established by the prior administration has failed too many students,” she said during a half-hour speech at George Mason University, after which she took no questions. “Survivors, victims of a lack of due process and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved.”

But the announcement drew howls of protest from womens’ groups and victims advocates, who said DeVos was making a false equivalence between victims and the accused.

“Schools are not getting it right sometimes — both for accused students and survivors,” said Neena Chaudhry, director of education at the National Women’s Law Center. “But the answer is not to change the law, but to help schools comply with it. Title IX already requires a fair process for both sides.”

The 2011 Obama guidance for the first time pushed school district, college and university leaders to combat sexual harassment, including sexual violence, saying the institutions were required to do so under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination. Women’s groups hailed that as a crucial step in cracking down on sexual violence on campuses. But critics said it trampled the rights of the accused.

The Trump administration will revamp the guidance through a rulemaking process that likely will take months, DeVos said during her speech, in which she blasted the guidance for having “weaponized the Office of Civil Rights to work against schools and against students.” She said the administration will give all sides a chance to offer opinions on how it should move forward.

“We will seek public feedback and combine institutional knowledge, professional expertise and the experiences of students to replace the current approach with a workable, effective and fair system,” DeVos said.

“This is not about letting institutions off the hook. They still have important work to do. ”

The far-reaching 2011 Obama-era guidance, issued in the form of a Dear Colleague Letter, was controversial from the start. It threatened a loss of funding to schools that failed to do enough to make students safe from sexual harassment, assault and rape. Critics said it pushed colleges to trample the rights of the accused. Among other things, the guidance pushed a lower standard of proof in campus disciplinary hearings than is used in criminal trials.

Many of those critics hailed DeVos’ announcement as “a really positive development.”

“I think it was a strong signal from the department that the current approach is unworkable and needs to be changed,” said Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a civil rights group that brought a court challenge to the 2011 guidance.

Chris Perry, deputy executive director of the group, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, which represents people accused of sexual assault, said DeVos’ remarks show “the secretary is listening to folks.”

As an interim measure, the Education Department will issue temporary Title IX guidelines for school districts, colleges and universities as it works on a permanent replacement for Obama-era guidelines, agency spokeswoman Liz Hill said.

“The 2011 guidance will be replaced, and in the interim, the department will make clear to schools how to fulfill their current obligations under Title IX,” Hill said. “OCR (the Office for Civil Rights) will work directly with schools to provide support and technical assistance.”

Asked whether the department plans to rescind the 2011 letter before it writes a permanent policy, Hill said “we will not rescind the letter without interim guidelines in place for schools.”

The decision to launch a notice-and-comment process was long expected. DeVos said in July — after a series of meetings with sexual assault survivors, students accused of assault and college officials — that she would overhaul the policy. She told reporters at the time that “it’s clear that there are failings in this process. A system without due process protections ultimately serves no one in the end.”

Advocacy groups — including those representing both sexual assault survivors and students accused of assault — were not invited to attend Thursday’s announcement in person, despite meeting with DeVos on the subject in July.
Instead, DeVos delivered the announcement during a tightly controlled half-hour event at the university’s Arlington, Va., campus, sponsored by the university law school chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative group. Shouts from protesters outside could be heard as she spoke.

Advocates for survivors of sexual assault said they felt they were given short shrift and noted that research has shown false claims of rape are rare. They said DeVos had indicated she would hold similar listening sessions in other parts of the country before making a decision.

Giving them just one meeting with the secretary “feels a little bit like paying lip service to the importance of having survivors in the room,” said Jess Davidson, managing director of End Rape on Campus.

“I think there’s been a really concerning false equivalence of the concerns of survivors and the accused throughout this entire process with the Department of Education,” Davidson said.

Sexual assault survivors rallied outside the university ahead of the announcement, urging DeVos to keep what they see as crucial protections in place.

“It’s really telling us that we don’t matter, that our pain is not relevant to people in power,” said Chessy Prout, 18. Prout said she was assaulted as a high school freshman and subsequently had to change schools.

Advocates slammed the speech afterward. “Don’t be duped by today’s announcement,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center. “What seems procedural is a blunt attack on survivors of sexual assault. It will discourage schools from taking steps to comply with the law — just at the moment when they are finally working to get it right. And it sends a frightening message to all students: Your government does not have your back if your rights are violated. This misguided approach signals a green light to sweep sexual assault further under the rug.”

Complicating the issue for DeVos are comments made by her civil rights chief, Candice Jackson, who told The New York Times this summer that 90 percent of sexual assault claims stem from drunken and regretted sex. Another complication is President Donald Trump’s boast about groping women in the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape.

“Secretary DeVos decided today to continue a pattern of undermining survivors’ rights, once again showing a clear lack of understanding or empathy for the millions of students who have experienced sexual violence on campus,” Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and ranking member of the Senate education committee, said in a statement.

But her announcement drew praise from at least one Republican lawmaker.

“The Department of Education is taking a positive first step in soliciting comments from stakeholders to get a better understanding of ways to better address the problem,” Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford said. “However, this is an issue where Congress must give the Department of Education clear statutory authority to properly regulate.”

Despite the administration’s plan to rewrite rules on Title IX, it’s unlikely that schools will immediately change policies that they spent the last six years writing — and sometimes rewriting — to remain in compliance with federal law.

“No school is going to go back to doing what they were doing before the 2011 guidance,” said Terry Hartle, senior vice president at the American Council on Education.

Posted in Discrimination, Education, Family Issues, Trump | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s DACA decision could strip thousands in New York of Medicaid coverage

A DACA supporter is pictured. | Getty
When President Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012, thousands of New Yorkers who were brought to the United States at a young age were suddenly eligible for Medicaid. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program could strip thousands of New Yorkers of their health insurance, a consequence unique to New York that could focus the debate in Albany when the Legislature returns in January.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday that the Obama-era program, which granted legal status to approximately 800,000 children brought to the United States by their parents, would begin to unwind in six months.

That provides Congress a brief window to solve one of the nation’s most divisive issues. Should Congress fail, New York could face its own difficult choice: whether to continue providing Medicaid to the DACA population.

There are approximately 42,000 DACA recipients in New York. The vast majority are at risk for losing their job-based health insurance if they lose their legal right to work. The Department of Health could not say how many DACA recipients currently rely on Medicaid but estimates are between 5,000 and 10,000.

New York is one of the few states that provides health insurance to non-citizens, or people residing under the color of law (PRUCOL). That’s because of a 2001 Court of Appeals ruling that said denying Medicaid to any legal resident violated the equal protection clauses of the New York and U.S. constitutions. As a result, immigrants in New York who are not citizens, but are living in the state lawfully, are entitled to Medicaid.

When President Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012, thousands of New Yorkers who were brought to the United States at a young age were suddenly eligible for Medicaid. It also allowed them to pay taxes.

Because the federal government does not recognize the state court’s decision, New York, which usually receives a 50 percent match for Medicaid expenses, pays the full cost for insuring these immigrants.

If they lose their DACA status and revert to being undocumented immigrants in the eyes of the law, they may also lose their right to Medicaid.

Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of health initiatives for the Community Service Society and a co-founder of Health Care For All New York, said the status of these immigrants is unclear.

She pointed to Trump’s statement, which said these DACA recipients would not be a priority for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That may mean they are still residing under the color of law because they are not under immediate threat of deportation.

It’s a bit of a legal stretch, but even if the law isn’t on her side, she said, Gov. Andrew Cuomo should continue to have the state Medicaid program cover DACA recipients.

“I would advocate they be covered under state-only Medicaid,” she said.

Will they?

“That’s the $64,000 question,” she said.

Cuomo’s office did not immediately say whether the state would extend coverage to DACA recipients who lost their protected status. The Department of Health did release a statement, saying Trump’s decision “not only displaces roughly 42,000 innocent New Yorkers whose young lives are intertwined in the very fabric of our communities, it jeopardizes access to affordable health care for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who call America home. New York State believes it has a legal and moral obligation to exhaust every available avenue to protect immigrants and their families by providing comprehensive access to health care, regardless of circumstance.”

Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, a Democrat from Manhattan and chair of the health committee, said the Assembly “will do whatever is necessary to fill gaps caused by federal action.”

“New York has for years provided health coverage for many undocumented immigrants using State-only dollars, including Child Health Plus coverage for children regardless of immigration status,” Gottfried said in an email. “We will not change this regardless of Federal policy.”

Presumably, this would mean helping to insure those who lose their employer-sponsored coverage and need Medicaid. In New York that would mean the state could potentially fund Medicaid for all 42,000 DACA-status immigrants.

Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican from western New York, said Trump was “very wise” to recognize that DACA is not something that can be done by executive order.

“That which is done by the pen can be undone by the pen,” said Reed, who favors a legislative solution that protects children brought here by their parents.

But if that effort fails, Reed had reservations about the state picking up the Medicaid tab, given its already sizable Medicaid budget, which Reed called “mind boggling.”

The problem, he said, is how to draw the line. How can the state award Medicaid to some undocumented immigrants but not all? And if it is offered to all, then how can the state afford to cover them?

“From my perspective, if Albany wants to do that, I’ll defer to the state,” Reed said. “But they really should let folks know what they are doing in terms of expanding the program.”

While the state might have to cover more people, Benjamin drew a distinction between the DACA population and other undocumented immigrants. The DACA group, she said, has already made themselves known to ICE, further bolstering the argument the state could make that they are residing under color of law, while other undocumented immigrants are not.

“It is the state who decides who is PRUCOL and who is not,” she said.

Posted in DACA, Health Care, immigration/deportation, Medicaid, NYS legislature, Trump | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trump Promised to Help Workers — But, Did He Really Mean It? His Justice Department just dropped appeal to save Obama overtime rule

Justice Department drops appeal to save Obama overtime rule
© Getty Images

 

The Justice Department announced on Tuesday that it will not defend an Obama-era Labor Department rule that would have extended overtime benefits to more than 4 million workers after a federal judge struck it down last week.

Bloomberg BNA reported on Tuesday that the administration will drop its appeal, filed in December, signaling it agrees with the court decision.

Last week, a federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obamastruck down the rule, saying it improperly focused on workers’ salaries instead of their job description. The rule would have forced employers to pay overtime to most salaried workers earning less than $47,476 annually. The salary cutoff for overtime pay now stands at $23,660.

The judge, Amos Mazzant, initially put the rule on hold last November. It was set to go into place on Dec. 1.  The ruling was celebrated by conservative and industry groups such as the Restaurant Law Center, which represents the restaurant industry.

“The Department of Labor under the previous administration overstepped its authority in making changes to the federal overtime rule. Today’s decision to invalidate the rule demonstrates the negative impacts these regulations would have had on businesses and their workers. We will continue to work with [the Department of Labor] on behalf of the restaurant industry to ensure workable changes to the overtime rule are enacted,” the Restaurant Law Center said last week in a statement.

In December, the Labor Department under Obama wrote that it “strongly disagreed” with the judge’s initial hold on the rule.  “We strongly disagree with the decision by the court, which has the effect of delaying a fair day’s pay for a long day’s work for millions of hardworking Americans,” the agency said.

“The department’s overtime rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rulemaking process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule.Progressive groups reacted swiftly to the Trump administration’s decision.

In an email, the president of American Bridge accused Trump of trying to “further rig the economy for the rich.”  “Donald Trump personally screwed over hundreds of employees by refusing to pay their overtime and now he’s using the Justice Department to slash the paychecks of 4 million hard-working Americans who will not receive the overtime pay ​that ​they earn. This is Trump’s latest action that is at odds with his campaign trail rhetoric, and ​it ​further shows how his economic agenda is solely designed to further rig the American economy for the rich – including Trump himself – at the expense of American workers,” group president Jessica Mackler wrote.

“The American Dream is moving farther and farther out of reach of our country’s workers and Donald Trump is to blame.”

Posted in economy, Employment, Fair Labor Standards, Labor, Trump | Leave a comment

The Trump Administration Now Has Tons Of DACA Data And Is Poised To Weaponize It

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ICE Wrongly Imprisoned an American Citizen for 1,273 Days. Judges Say He’s Owed $0.

Daily Beast — NIGHTMARE

By Harry Siegel  Sept. 5, 2017

An ICE agent sent through—and his supervisors approved—mistaken paperwork ‘proving’ Davino Watson wasn’t a citizen. And no one’s been held to account for the catastrophic screw-up.

The thing that happened to Davino Watson, American citizen, when he was locked up in prison for 1,273 days awaiting deportation amounts to an “entirely common state of affairs,” according to two United States Court of Appeals judges riding the Second Circuit.

Watson’s nightmarish odyssey through the overloaded parallel legal system more concerned with pushing paper than with just outcomes began on May 8, 2008, the day the then-23-year-old high school dropout completed a bootcamp-style Shock program for non-violent offenders after pleading guilty to selling a small amount of cocaine in Times Square the previous year.

His story is, on the face of it, perfectly simple: He came from Jamaica as a 14-year-old in 1998 to live with his father and stepmother, and when his father became a citizen in 2002, he automatically became one too under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. That’s what he told the first ICE agent who came to interview him while he was in the Shock program. Watson provided his parents’ contact information and the agent left without issuing a detainer.

He went through the story again with a second agent, Erik Andren, who also had a packet of information from the New York State Department of Corrections that listed his parents’ names and their phone number and explicitly stated that Davino was a citizen.

Yet “about three seconds” after his sentence was completed, Watson was arrested by ICE.

That seemed terrible but temporary, what with him being a citizen and his father (who had never married his mother, which plays a strange role in the mess that follows) and stepmother easily able to verify that with a phone call. Instead, it turned out to be the beginning of a years-long tragedy of needless errors, along with legal insults.

A not so fun fact about what Donald Rumsfeld once called “known unknowns”: ICE doesn’t know or won’t say how many American citizens have been arrested and imprisoned by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. It’s illegal for ICE to imprison Americans, but so long as its agents don’t believe you are one, the burden is on you to prove it—without being entitled to a lawyer, since most deportation hearings are civil proceedings.

An NPR analysis this year found 693 citizens have been held in local jails on federal detainer requests since 2007 and 818 more have been imprisoned directly by ICE.

Even that’s just a fraction of the 3,600 American citizens a 2011 Berkeley study found were detained by ICE under the “secure communities” program started by President Bush, dramatically expanded and later suspended by President Obama, and now revived by President Trump, who’s threatening to withhold federal funds from localities that don’t sign up. Basically, the program crosschecks local and state fingerprints against federal immigration and criminal records, so that the feds can pick up “illegal immigrants” straight from jails or prisons when their term is up.

Take the case of Watson, as laid out last year by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein.

After meeting Davino Watson, paperwork indicates that Andren, the second ICE agent to interview him while he was in the Shock program, “never made a successful attempt to reach (his parents) at the phone number” he’d provided and “ignored the notation on the Pre-Sentence Face Sheet that plaintiff was claiming United States citizenship.”

Despite Davino Watson repeatedly providing the names of his biological father, Hopeton Watson, and his stepmother, Claire Watson, Andren somehow requested so-called alien files for Hopeton Livingston Watson and for Calrie Dale Watson—“obviously not plaintiffs parents properly described to the government by the plaintiff.”

Weinstein continues: “a reasonable person exercising even a modest amount of care would have recognized that these files did not—could not—belong to plaintiff’s father or step-mother.”

Hopeton Livingston Watson lived in Connecticut and was unmarried; Davino’s father lived in New York City and was married to his stepmother. Hopeton Livingston Watson became a permanent resident of the United States three years after Davino became a citizen. None of Hopeton Livingston Watson’s children, listed in the file, were named Davino. More, this Hopeton’s ex-wife was a citizen, which Weinstein notes should by itself have led Andren to look further into Davino’s citizenship status.

As for Calrie Dale Watson, not only was her name spelled differently than that of Davino’s stepmother, but her file showed that she was married not to Davino’s father but to a Glenn Miller, and took the name Waston from a previous husband, who died in 1983.

Andren, though, had sent on his paperwork deeming Davino a deportable alien even before the files he’d requested on Hopeton Livingston and Calrie Dale even reached him.

On April 7, a month before Davino Watson was to be released from the Shock program, Andren’s paperwork beginning his deportation process reached ICE Deportation Officer Juan Estrada, who, Weinstein writes, simply “rubber-stamped the incorrect conclusions of Officer Andren without the investigation or evaluation the file clearly indicated was needed” and instead “simply relied on the file he had been provided by another government worker, which (now) included the obviously incorrect Hopeton Watson and Calrie Watson alien files.”

Estrada testified that an attorney then reviewed his paperwork to ensure there was legal sufficiency to begin removal proceedings. Another rubber stamp and the paper was pushed on. “This level of review was effectively a mindless failure,” Weinstein writes.

Next, the file went to ICE Supervisory Deportation Officer Michael Ortiz, who “mindlessly signed” the so-called Warrant for Arrest of Alien and other paperwork, which was then forwarded to ICE’s Buffalo office.

“It does not appear that (Oritz) performed any independent investigation of the statements concerning plaintiff’s citizenship or analysis of the problem,” writes Weinstein. “He merely signed off on the obvious errors already committed. This was a shirking of duty.”

The paperwork about Davino Watson, filed by one agent and then pushed on without review by two supervisors and an attorney, finally caught up with the man himself on the day of his release from the Shock program. Judge Weinstein’s ruling runs through the absurdity and horror that followed, as Watson kept telling his simple story: “No, I’m a citizen.”

As Judge Weinstein recounts in this painstaking chronology, it took years and years for Watson—who was promised when ICE first arrested him that an immigration judge would be able to resolve things within 24 hours—to prove he was a citizen.

That was a lie.

And so he fought, representing himself for years because he couldn’t afford a lawyer and had no right to one. He kept fighting for himself while locked up for 49 days before he appeared before an immigration judge for the first time. Kept fighting for 190 days, representing himself in four more appearances and two conferences with judges before one orally ruled that a change in the American interpretation of Jamaican law made 27 days after ICE arrested him meant the son of an unmarried father born there such as himself was by definition “not a U.S. citizen.”

Kept fighting for 811 days before he was finally appointed a lawyer, after the second petition he wrote himself to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finally convinced real federal judges to take up his case.

And then he fought some more. Kept fighting for all of the 1,273 days he was shipped from one detention to center to another, then a third and then a fourth. Kept fighting for 755 more days after ICE finally dumped him out in a small town, with no explanation and no money, a thousand miles from his home. For 450 days after that before the removal proceedings against him were finally terminated.

It was 2,028 days—more than six years—after ICE arrested him that Davino Watson finally received a certificate of United States citizenship, proving what had been true since day one, when he was promised a judge would clear things up with 24 hours.

He fought on, with legal help now, for 1,364 days after that, seeking accountability and compensation for his years of illegal imprisonment until his fight finally came to an end last month, when two federal appeals judges ruled that there was nothing to be done about what had been done to him.

If Judge Weinstein’s account of Watson’s long fight to prove he was a citizen, annotated here, feels exhausting to simply read through, imagine what it felt like to live through.

In his decision, Judge Weinstein ruled Watson was “badly treated by government employees. He deserves a letter of apology from the United States in addition to damages. But the court is not empowered to order this courtesy.”

Weinstein ruled that Watson was owed $82,500 for what ICE had done to him, broken down into $2,000 a day for 27 days of loss of liberty, $500 for 27 days of emotional injury, and $15,000 for false arrest. The remaining 1,246 days of imprisonment—after the Board of Immigration Appeals decided children of unmarried Jamaicans couldn’t use their paternity to claim American citizenship—were legally justified, since the government had fair reason from then on to think that Watson was “a non-citizen.”

Instead of issuing the apology Weinstein called for, the government appealed his ruling. Earlier this summer, a split three-judge Court of Appeals panel issued an unprecedented reversal of his decision, with Judges Dennis Jacobs and Debra Livingston deciding that Watson was, in fact, owed nothing since “the government did not act with malice” even in those first 27 days, since there’s no tort in New York that lines up with what happened to him after an ICE agent simply assigned him new parents, and since “Watson did not suffer cognizable damages” because he hadn’t been legally employed when he was arrested.

Remarkably, they also determined that Watson’s two-year clock to sue began to run on the 27th day of his incarceration—1,246 days before he was unceremoniously released in Alabama and 2,001 days before he finally received the certificate from the government showing that he was, in fact, a citizen.

“Watson’s own actions foreclose the argument” that he needed to be out of prison before suing for wrongful imprisonment, wrote judges Jacobs and Livingston. Since he vigorously argued his own case for years before even getting a lawyer, they ruled that Watson couldn’t credibly call being incarcerated a “severe” obstacle to suing for that incarceration. His lack of education, lack of a lawyer, and lack of awareness that he could sue also didn’t qualify as exceptional circumstances to bring an untimely claim.

“In sum, there is no doubt that the government botched the investigation into Watson’s assertion of citizenship, and that as a result a U.S. citizen was held for years in immigration detention and nearly deported. Nonetheless, we must conclude that Watson is not entitled to damages from the government.”

Chief Judge Katzmann, dissenting in part, opened with a blistering reply, though surely one that felt like too little, too late for Watson: “It is well known that immigrants in this country ‘have no specific right to counsel’ in immigration proceedings, even for life-altering proceedings such as detention and removal. What is less well known, but no less consequential, is that U.S. citizens also have no such right if they are ensnared in our nation’s detention and removal system, and yet they bear the burden of establishing their citizenship to secure release.”

Katzmann continued, expanding his frame to the 34,000 non-citizens imprisoned by ICE on any given day: “Watson’s experience is far from unusual. Respondents are often forced into just such an unfortunate dilemma: either seek to postpone the removal hearing (and therefore extend their time in detention) in the hope of obtaining pro bono counsel, or else push forward without counsel and face a far greater likelihood of receiving an order of deportability. A recent study of immigration proceedings found that 60 percent of individuals in detention were unable to obtain access to counsel before their cases were completed, and that number rose for individuals who were transferred from New York to far-off detention centers like the Tensas Parish Detention Center in Louisiana that held Watson, where such individuals went without representation 79 percent of the time.

“The ‘legal process’ to which Watson was subjected, moreover, is one in which the odds are stacked against him and similarly situated respondents. The same study found that being detained and lacking representation ‘drops the success rate dramatically’ for the respondent: only 3 percent of individuals who are detained and who go without counsel have successful outcomes, as compared to 74 percent of individuals who are represented and are either released or never detained—a nearly 2400 percent increase in the odds of prevailing…

“I raise these points to emphasize how much the assistance of counsel is central not only to the ‘legal process’ of a criminal prosecution but also to immigration detention and removal proceedings.”

When the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit writes a decision with the words “legal process” in scare quotes, something has gone seriously, terribly wrong.

Katzmann concluded, brutally: “I would hope that nothing about Watson’s 1,273-day detention can be said to have been ‘an entirely common state of affairs.’ If it were, we should all be deeply troubled. An American citizen was detained on the basis of a ‘grossly negligent’ investigation that ‘led to [his] wrongful detention.’ …

“I am hopeful that one day soon no immigrant or citizen will be forced to go through a predicament like Watson’s without the assistance of counsel to help vindicate his cause.”

Posted in immigration/deportation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

It’s Time For an Apology from the GOP

Published in The East Hampton Star

Dear David:

 

Republicans owe America an apology.

Sadly, we have arrived at a point at which the White House, the political crown jewel that the GOP so ardently sought, is in disarray, which has taken down the GOP-led Congress as well. After making President Obama’s failure its No. 1 priority (so much so that it became an obsession), the GOP worked hard to get a rich white guy – any rich white guy – to take the mantle of leadership after Obama. In pursuing its obsession, it abandoned its stated principles and abandoned those it promises to serve.

Republicans refused to negotiate honestly when Democrats spent months seeking Republican support for the Affordable Care Act. Then they tried repeatedly over seven-plus years to take away that health care – not, as it turns out because they had a better idea, but because it was Obama’s idea. Even worse, for seventy-plus years Congress has worked to create, and then perfect (or try to) a safety net that would protect working class America and the disadvantaged among us from financial and social ruin. The current Republican credo, adhered to from the top of the ticket to its most local echelons, holds dear the destruction of those protections.

Yet, in the last election cycle, all one heard from GOP candidates was the mantra that working class America had been “forgotten” and only they were the ones capable of repairing this so-called injustice. Decrying the political opposition by fomenting race-based paranoia allowed these candidates to camouflage their real agenda. It is not the furtherance of the “forgotten,” it is the furtherance of unscrupulous greed.

Help the “forgotten”? Not Trump. The policies that have actually been implemented by the Trump administration, with the help of a Republican Congress, reflect a disdain for ordinary working-class Americans. Shortly after Trump took office, he and the GOP-led Congress rejected numerous Obama-era regulations that were actually designed to support workers, including rules barring worker discrimination, rules designed to enhance workers’ wages and rules enhancing workplace protection, such as barring companies with a history wage, labor or workplace safety violations laws from receiving federal contracts. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

So, the GOP agenda has no intention of protecting the “forgotten.” Its true colors are shown in its efforts to rip away healthcare, savage the social safety net and, in so doing, leaving the “forgotten” to fend for themselves. Under the GOP agenda, the “forgotten” will soon be the “trampled.”

The sad truth behind the GOP camouflage is that millions of hard-working Americans drank the GOP Kool-Aid, believing that the party truly cared for them and would make good on promises to deliver wealth, improve healthcare and preserve the all-important safety net protecting these folks. For some, it was hard not to be seduced by Trump and his GOP cohorts.

However, like everyone else who has succumbed to Trump’s wiles, these voters too have been had.

And for this, the GOP owes America an apology. And the lesson for voters from all this is that old adage: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Let’s not be fooled again, either in our local elections this year or next year when the GOP Congress has to face the music. Trust not the GOP Kool-Aid another time.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bruce Colbath

 

 

Posted in Alt-Right, American Health Care Act, Better Care Reconciliation Act, Congress, GOP, Trump | Leave a comment

Zeldin & Unity?

Published in The East Hampton Star

Re: Letter to the Editor – Morally Bankrupt?

Dear David:

Mr. Zeldin penned a letter in the aftermath of the Charlottesville tragedy. In it, our congressman extolled: “This is a day to be an American. … United.”

His call for “unity” is insulting. I have no interest in unifying with the KKK. I have no interest in unifying with racists pursuing a white supremacist “solution.” His call for unity is entirely one-sided: we Americans are supposed to embrace these groups in the name of “unity,” while they would kill us.

Now, he has taken to the air to wrongly align himself with Trump’s condemnation of those who stood up to the supremacists in Charlottesville. White supremacy or Nazism (or any like mindset) is an embodiment of evil. Likewise, equating Nazism with those opposing it is a moral outrage. Especially for Mr. Zeldin, who touts both his religion and being a veteran: he should reach back 70 years and visit the American cemeteries in Europe and count the thousands of American lives that were sacrificed to combat Nazism. His placating neo-Nazi white supremacists confers the ultimate insult upon those who lost fathers, mothers, sons or daughters in that struggle.

Why would our Congressman, given his religious and service background (which he readily brandishes for political purposes), ask us to embrace this unfettered criminality? His letter should have urged us to reject, unabashedly, everything the white supremacist faction represents. Rather, he chose to parrot Mr. Trump by also casting blame on those who opposed this evil. There is only one side deserving of blame.

His craven letter and press statements expose exactly what is behind it: political opportunism to pander to the far right, which the GOP sees as its base and in need of constant coddling. That Mr. Zeldin would cast aside personal integrity in blind obeisance to Trump’s bellicosity and the overarching GOP design is, in itself, sufficient reason to reject unequivocally the notion that he is qualified to represent which is truly America.

Sincerely,

Carol O’Rourke

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Zeldin & Bigotry

zeldin-republican-trump-charlottesville-1503070405

Published in the Village Times (East Setauket)

To the Editor,

No, Representative Zeldin, it is not enough to pay lip service against the KKK and Nazism as you do in your August 17 letter to the editor. You then go on to parrot Mr. Trump’s false assertion that “there is evidence that the violence came from multiple groups and multiple sides” and “For any of the protesters on either side with extremist views and violent purposes, you are 100 percent completely in the wrong.”

No, Representative Zeldin, let us be perfectly clear that there is no moral equivalence between marchers waving swastikas and chanting anti-semitic slogans – and those who came to protest this hatred. The counter-protesters were there to defend American values against the “Unite the Right” rally’s message of hate.

Mr. Trump is being broadly condemned by both Republicans and Democrats for blaming the violence on “both sides.” You need to join them in holding him accountable for preaching hate from the White House. It is not good enough for you to speak out against white supremacists – you need to speak out against this president who enables and emboldens them with his hate-filled rhetoric and policies. It is time for you to join people in Congress and in the business and arts world who have spoken out against Mr. Trump’s bigotry. You need to demand that he fire the rest of his alt-right advisors in the White House, including Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka. You need to join the brave people in Congress who have called for censure of Mr. Trump.

Anything less is just empty words.

Terry S. Shapiro, D.M.D.

 

Posted in bigotry, Religion & tolerance, Uncategorized, Zeldin | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Where the truth lies in Donald Trump’s tax reform pitch

During a speech on tax reform on Wednesday, President Donald Trump recalled memories of President Ronald Reagan’s rewrite of the tax code in the 1980s.
“In 1986, Ronald Reagan led the world by cutting our corporate tax rate to 34%,” Trump said in his Springfield, Missouri, speech. “Over the past 30 years, the average business tax rate among developed nations fell from 45% to less than 24%. … They are taking us, frankly, to the cleaners. So we must — we have no choice — we must lower our taxes.”
This is core to Trump’s pitch that the tax rate on corporations be lowered from 35% to 15%. But while 35% is indeed among the highest in the developed world, it is actually nowhere near what most companies pay.
In 2016, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found at least two-thirdsof corporations did not pay any federal income tax between 2006 and 2012. One-fifth of America’s largest corporations who reported a profit in 2012 paid no income tax that same year.
A study released earlier this year found the effective tax rate for Fortune 500 companies that were consistently profitable is 21.2%. Eighteen of the more than 250 companies analyzed paid no corporate tax over an eight-year period; 48 paid less than 10%.
In fact, as Trump argues American companies leave the U.S. because of high tax rates, the percentage of federal revenue coming from corporations has fallen by two-thirds since 1950.
The U.S. still has one of the world’s higher corporate tax rates, but not to the extreme degree Trump has consistently alleged. American companies actually pay slightly less in overall taxes than companies in comparable countries.
Google paid less than 17% in 2015 and large drug manufacturers paid even less. General Motors paid a negative 34.3% tax rate.
How do companies pull this off? Deductions and tax breaks.
According to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study, while the corporate income tax in 2016 raised $300 billion in revenues, “targeted subsidies delivered to companies through the corporate tax code cost about $270 billion.”
It’s also worth noting that a corporate tax rate of 15% is seen as a nonstarter in Congress. Republicans would be hard-pressed to fund a deficit-neutral tax plan with that low a tax rate and Democrats would never support it.
The upshot of this is asking whether the estimated cost of Trump’s tax plan — $2 trillion over a decade — is worth it. There’s little evidence to suggest it would bring companies, particularly blue collar employers Trump hopes for, flooding back into the U.S.

 

 

Posted in GOP, Tax Reform, Trump | Tagged | Leave a comment