Tag Archives: democrats

Even the Voting Problems Are Bigger in Texas

Mother Jones

Battleground Texas, the effort by Obama vets to turn the nation’s biggest red state blue, got off to a rough start last fall when Democratic gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis lost by 21 points. But now, as the organization looks to rebuild toward its long-term goal of mobilizing the state’s long-dormant Democratic base, its leaders are doing a public dissection of what went wrong—and what to do differently next time.

In a feature published by Texas Monthly in late February, Robert Draper broke down the organization’s financial struggles and turf wars, but also the difficulties Battleground faced with the field of battle of itself. The newcomers, Draper explained, had no idea just how hard it would be enroll new voters while complying with the state’s Byzantine rules:

For a group like Battleground to register Texans to vote, they themselves must be Texas residents, must be eligible to vote and—in a wrinkle that is unique to Texas—must be deputized by each county where they’re registering. In some of the state’s 254 counties, going through the requisite voter registration training course can be done online; in others, certification is offered only once a month, at the county courthouse during work hours. But as the Battleground team came to learn, the complications only begin once a deputy registrar is certified. If a Dallas County-certified volunteer registers someone who says they live in that county when in fact they live just across the border in Tarrant County, then the deputy registrar has committed a misdemeanor. If the volunteer turns in the completed registration forms more than five days after they’ve been collected, that’s also a misdemeanor.

“When we first heard about these laws,” recalled executive director Jenn Brown, “I said, ‘There’s no way this is the law—this is unbelievable.'”

The organization has released a 36-page report documenting the findings of its voter-protection program. There’s plenty to chew over, some of it anecdotal, some of it not. In Texas’ five largest counties—the urban, majority-minority areas heavily targeted by Democrats—provisional ballots were rejected more than four times as often as the national average. (Only one in four provisional votes was accepted.) That’s significant because a variety of factors on the most recent Election Day—like the debut of a voter ID requirement that affected as many as 600,000 eligible voters, and a breakdown of the state’s voter registration portal—made it much more likely that citizens who showed up at the polls had to fill out provisional ballots.

The report highlights another inconsistency in the state’s voter law—what happens when you move:

Unfortunately, although more than one in 10 Americans move annually, Texas law requires voters to completely re-register after moving between counties within the state. If a voter fails to do so, her ability to vote is dependent upon a seemingly irrelevant factor—whether that voter casts a ballot during Early Voting or on Election Day. If a voter has moved to a new county and the voter rolls have not been updated, she is only permitted to vote a so-called limited ballot for statewide offices, and can only do so during Early Voting or by mail. On Election Day, by contrast, that same voter cannot vote at all. We received more than a hundred reports involving voters who had recently moved within Texas, yet whose address had not been updated on the voter rolls.

This isn’t Battleground’s attempt to explain away that 21-point stomping, and there’s plenty of debate on that in the Texas Monthly piece. But it’s a revealing look at what’s on the organizers’ minds as they retool for 2016 and beyond.

Read the full report here:

dc.embed.loadNote(‘//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1681791-voting-in-texas-in-2014-1/annotations/206328.js’);

This article is from:

Even the Voting Problems Are Bigger in Texas

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even the Voting Problems Are Bigger in Texas

Tea Party Loses Big in Today’s Vote on Clean DHS Funding Bill

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It looks like the conventional wisdom was correct:

The House will vote as soon as Tuesday afternoon on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year. The measure will not target President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, giving Democrats what they have long demanded and potentially enraging conservatives bent on fighting the president on immigration.

…The decision marks a big win for Democrats, who have long demanded that Congress pass a “clean” bill to fund DHS free of any immigration riders. For weeks, Boehner and his top deputies have refused to take up such a bill, as conservatives have demanded using the DHS debate to take on Obama’s directives, which include action to prevent the deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants.

I thought the most likely course was a brief DHS shutdown (a week or two) just to save face, followed by a pretty clean funding bill. But I was too pessimistic. Apparently the House leadership wasn’t willing to take the PR hit that would inevitably involve.

I wonder if Republicans could have gotten a better deal if the tea party faction had been less bullheaded? Last week’s debacle, where they torpedoed even a three-week funding extension, surely demonstrated to Boehner that he had no choice but to ignore the tea partiers entirely. They simply were never going to support anything except a full repeal of Obama’s immigration actions, and that was never a remotely realistic option. The subsequent one-week extension passed only thanks to Democratic votes, and that made it clear that working with Democrats was Boehner’s only real choice. And that in turn meant a clean funding bill.

But what if the tea partiers had signaled some willingness to compromise? Could they have passed a bill that repealed some small part of Obama’s program—and that could have passed the Senate? Maybe. Instead they got nothing. I guess maybe they’d rather stick to their guns than accomplish something small but useful. That sends a signal to their base, but unfortunately for them, it also sends a signal to Boehner. And increasingly, that signal is that he has no choice but to stop paying attention to their demands. There’s nothing in it for Boehner, is there?

This article – 

Tea Party Loses Big in Today’s Vote on Clean DHS Funding Bill

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tea Party Loses Big in Today’s Vote on Clean DHS Funding Bill

Netanyahu’s Speech: Mansplaining Iran to Obama

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress has been covered as a spectacle orchestrated (perhaps in a misguided fashion) by the conservative GOP-Likud alliance to undercut President Barack Obama’s effort to reach a deal with Iran limiting that government’s nuclear program. But this stunt did highlight a significant aspect of the the ongoing debate over Iran—Netanyahu’s position is extreme and unworkable: Iran should yield completely, or there will be war.

The ongoing negotiations between the United States and its allies and Iran have been a tough slog. But at the heart of the issue is a simple point: Will Iran be allowed to engage in any enrichment of uranium? Iran insists it is entitled to pursue a nuclear program, if only for civilian purposes. Netanyahu contends that if Tehran retains any nuclear program, there will be a risk that it can develop nuclear weapons with which it can threaten Israel’s existence. Obama’s aim is to impose severe restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program to limit any ability to produce a nuclear bomb—and to ensure that if there were to be an Iranian breakout from an agreement that it would still take Tehran some time to make a bomb. Obama wants to minimize greatly the risk of Iran going nuclear; Netanyahu wants to eliminate the risk.

Continue Reading »

Link:

Netanyahu’s Speech: Mansplaining Iran to Obama

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Netanyahu’s Speech: Mansplaining Iran to Obama

DHS Funding Fight Is Going Down to the Wire

Mother Jones

We’re getting down to the wire in the funding fight over the Department of Homeland Security: DHS will shut down this weekend if funding isn’t approved by Friday. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell wants to simply hold two separate votes: one to fund DHS and another to repeal President Obama’s recent immigration actions. But tea partiers in the House are adamantly opposed to that: they want to keep the two things together in one bill, which they hope will force Democrats to cave in and kill the immigration plan. In reality, it will only produce deadlock in the Senate and a shutdown of DHS that Republicans will be blamed for. So what’s John Boehner to do? Greg Sargent comments:

We’ve seen this particular thriller a number of times already. Here’s how it always goes: We are told there’s no way Boehner would ever dare move must-pass legislation with a lot of Democrats. He’s stuck! Then pressure builds and builds, and Boehner does end up passing something with a lot of Democrats. Last I checked, he’s still Speaker.

….The fact that Boehner has the mere option of passing clean funding with the help of a lot of Democrats is rarely even mentioned. You can read article after article about this whole showdown and not be informed of that basic fact. Thus, the actual reason we’re stuck in this crisis — Boehner is delaying the moment where he does pass something with Dems for as long as possible — goes oddly unmentioned. Yet recent history suggests that Boehner himself knows this is how it will end, and that all of this drama won’t change the outcome.

Probably so. After all, the only thing that changed in the last election was control of the Senate, and Senate Republicans are willing to compromise. The House is probably going to have to go down that road eventually too.

But my guess is that they’re going to shut down DHS for a while first. Boehner has made it pretty clear that he feels like he needs to demonstrate his conservative bona fides at the beginning of this new session of Congress, and that means holding out as long as he can. It’s a waste of time, and it’s going to hurt Republican efforts to work on other legislation, but that’s life. Symbols are important, and Boehner needs to show whose side he’s on. There’s a good chance this will last a couple of weeks before it gets resolved.

Excerpt from – 

DHS Funding Fight Is Going Down to the Wire

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on DHS Funding Fight Is Going Down to the Wire

John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I could use a good laugh, and this afternoon I got one. For starters, as the White House hinted yesterday, Joe Biden won’t be attending Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech next month before a joint session of Congress. Apparently he’ll be out of the country that day:

The vice president’s office on Friday confirmed the plans to skip the March 3 speech. “We are not ready to announce details of his trip yet, and normally our office wouldn’t announce this early, but the planning process has been underway for a while,” a spokesperson for the office said.

So where exactly will Joe be? Well, um, somewhere. The planning process “has been underway for a while,” the White House insists with a straight face, but they don’t know yet what country they’ve been planning to send him to. But they’ll think of one. Maybe Latvia or something.

This is all part of the mounting fury from Democrats in Congress and the White House over the speech, and it’s become increasingly clear that the whole thing is a major blunder for Netanyahu. But who to blame? The invitation came from Speaker of the House John Boehner, so why not blame him? Today Netanyahu did exactly that, throwing him under the proverbial bus with barely a passing glance:

A senior Israeli official suggested on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been misled into thinking an invitation to address the U.S. Congress on Iran next month was fully supported by the Democrats….“It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides,” Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.

Poor John Boehner. You almost feel sorry for the guy sometimes. President Obama has been running rings around him for months now, infuriating the Republican caucus and causing Boehner endless headaches over Cuba, immigration, net neutrality, Homeland Security shutdowns, and dozens of other subjects. No matter how hard he tries, Boehner just hasn’t been able to get ahead of any of this. Instead he’s been forced over and over to respond to Obama’s agenda while desperately trying to keep the peace among the tea partiers who control his future.

Then, finally, it looked like he’d pulled something off. He announced the Netanyahu speech two weeks ago, catching the president off guard and garnering huzzahs from every corner of the the conservative movement. Finally, a victory!

But now it’s all turned to ashes. His big spectacle is in tatters, with Democrats in open revolt and pundits of all stripes agreeing that he overreached by going around the White House on a foreign policy matter. It’s been nothing but a headache, and even Netanyahu has joined the lynch mob now. What’s worse, there’s nothing he can do. The speech is still four weeks away, and Boehner has no choice but to let the whole dreary debacle play out. He already knows his show is a flop, but the curtain has to come up anyway and Boehner has to keep a stiff upper lip the whole time.

Poor guy.

Source:  

John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

With measles cases in the United States at a 20-year high, some Republican presidential hopefuls have gotten heat for pandering to conservative voters who doubt extensive scientific evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism. With Chris Christie and Rand Paul making controversial comments on the issue, Hillary Clinton came out strongly Monday night on the side of science:

But in 2008—when a widespread theory linking vaccines to autism had already been debunked—Clinton wasn’t so definitive on this point. In response to a questionnaire from an autism advocacy group, she wrote, “I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism – but we should find out.”

Clinton has a long history of supporting efforts to get children vaccinated. In 1993, she spearheaded the Childhood Immunization Initiative and the Vaccines for Children program, which aimed to make vaccines affordable. Yet, she also has been a strong voice for families dealing with autism, calling in 2007 for $700 million per year to fund research and education. Her comments in 2008 reflected a certain tension to advocating on both fronts.

More stories on vaccines and outbreaks:


Vaccines Work. These 8 Charts Prove It.


Map: The High Cost of Vaccine Hysteria


How Many People Arenâ&#128;&#153;t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?


Measles Cases in the US Are at a 20-Year High. Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers.


This PBS Special Makes the Most Powerful Argument for Vaccines Yet


Mickey Mouse Still Stricken With Measles, Thanks to the Anti-Vaxxers


If You Distrust Vaccines, You’re More Likely to Think NASA Faked the Moon Landings

She also wasn’t the only prominent Democrat hedging about autism and vaccines during the 2008 election cycle: At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania that April, Barack Obama was asked about a link. “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate,” he replied. “Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines…The science is right now inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

It used to be more politically difficult for Democrats to come out swinging against anti-vaxxers, a problem that now appears to be growing for Republicans. In 2009, 26 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats believed parents should be able to decide whether to vaccinate their kids. Now, according to a new Pew survey, 34 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats hold that view.

Obama’s position has evolved too: On Sunday, he urged parents to get their kids vaccinated. “There aren’t reasons not to,” he said.

Originally posted here: 

Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Poll: Republicans More Likely Than Dems to Say Vaccinations Should be Parents’ Choice

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

According to a new report from the Pew Research Center, vaccine beliefs are divided along party lines. A poll found that 1 out of 3 Republicans and Independents said the decision to vaccinate should be a parent’s choice, compared to 1 out of 5 Democrats.

The poll also found that young adults are more likely than their older counterparts to believe that parents should be able to choose whether to vaccinate a child. An estimated 41 percent of 18-to-29-years olds believed it should be a parent’s decision, compared to just 20 percent of adults 65 years or older.

Some attribute this divide to the fact that Measles have become rare since 1963, when the first Measles vaccine was introduced. In 1958, there were 750,000 cases of the disease. By 1968 this number had fallen to 22,000. By 2000 there were only 86 confirmed Measles cases reported to the CDC. Number stayed low until 2014 when the Center for Disease Control reported an outbreak of more than 600 cases. It was the first spike in a decade and was largely linked to unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio.

This is Pew’s first report on this question since 2009; however, it is interesting to note that the data was amassed in August 2014—months before the current Measles outbreak that has resulted in more than 100 cases across 14 states.

Original article:

Poll: Republicans More Likely Than Dems to Say Vaccinations Should be Parents’ Choice

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Poll: Republicans More Likely Than Dems to Say Vaccinations Should be Parents’ Choice

On These Five Things, Republicans Actually Might Work With Dems To Do Something Worthwhile

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Recently, bipartisan momentum has been building behind an issue that has historically languished in Congress: criminal justice reform. Recent Capitol Hill briefings have drawn lawmakers and activists from across the political spectrum—from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to Koch Industries general counsel Mark Holden, whose boss, conservative mega-donor Charles Koch, has made reform a key philanthropic priority.

The emergence of this unlikely coalition has been building for some time: liberals have long been critical of the criminal justice status quo, and many “tough on crime” conservatives—growing concerned by the staggering costs of mass incarceration and the system’s impingement on liberty—are beginning to join their liberal and libertarian-minded colleagues. In the past, bills aimed at overhauling the criminal justice system have stagnated on Capitol Hill, but the bipartisan players who are coming together to push for change means that there are some reforms that could realistically gain traction, even in this divided Congress.

Earned time credits. These programs, under which prisoners can work to earn an early release by completing classes, job training, and drug rehab, are highly popular among reformers. Many states already offer them, and they’ve been touted as smart, efficient ways to reduce prison populations as well as recidivism rates. Criminal justice lawyer and commentator at The Hill newspaper Jay Hurst says that this is the likeliest issue where Congress could pass legislation this year.

Easing up mandatory minimums. These laws, which broadly require those convicted of certain crimes to serve set sentences regardless of the specifics of the case, are considered hallmarks of the tough-on-crime approach politicians used to embrace. Critics, such as advocacy group Families Against the Mandatory Minimum, argue that these laws “undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual” and that they are one of the main reasons for overcrowded prisons. According to Jesselyn McCurdy, a criminal justice expert at the ACLU, half of those locked up in federal prison are there for drug offenses, which mandatory minimums are often rigorously applied to.

Last January, Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, which intended to reduce the size of the prison population and rein in ballooning costs, by reducing mandatory minimum sentencing, especially for drug-related crimes. Someone serving a 10-year sentence for a nonviolent crime could theoretically get out in five, under the legislation. The bill also proposed broadening judges’ discretion to sentence below federal minimums, known as the “safety valve” for over-sentencing.

The Durbin-Lee bill died in committee—a common fate for criminal justice legislation—and a total overhaul of mandatory minimums could be a tough ask for this Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s new chair, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), is a vocal defender of sentencing minimums. Still, experts say there’s reason to believe some progress could get made. “Safety valve relief could happen this Congress,” Hurst said, because it’s considered a more moderate path to reducing sentences.

Juvenile justice reform. Criticism has grown louder over the way the justice system treats juveniles, from its practice of trying younger teenagers as adults to its placement of some minors in brutal solitary confinement. Last summer, Booker and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the REDEEM Act (which stands for Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment), which—among other things—aimed to eliminate solitary confinement for minors, and provided incentives, such as first dibs on public safety grant money, to get states to stop trying minors in adult courts.

REDEEM stalled in committee, but Michael Harris, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law, thinks this Congress will make progress. “There will be bipartisan support for legislative action on solitary,” Harris says. “There is growing support for limiting it…many places are just using it way too much.”

Reducing recidivism. A major talking point from reformers on the left and the right is the need to transform prisons into places that actually rehabilitate inmates—not the existing “graduate schools of crime” that encourage repeat offenses. For years, “policymakers across the political spectrum saw high rates of re-offense as inevitable,” so they just kept offenders behind bars, according to a report from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, an office within the Department of Justice. Some states, however, have changed their approaches to incarceration and reduced recidivism rates dramatically. North Carolina passed reforms in 2011 that allocated more resources towards smoothing parolees’ transitions into regular life through advising and planning help. The state’s recidivism rate has gone down nearly 20 percent, and it has closed nine correctional facilities.

In late 2013, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the Federal Prison Reform Act of 2013, which aimed to translate successful state reforms to the federal level. The central proposal was to require that all inmates be classified by risk of recidivism (low, medium, or high) and allocate resources based on that. The bill died in committee, but Whitehouse’s office confirmed that his cooperation with Sen. Cornyn will continue in this Congress, and it’s possible they’d revive their previous bill.

Sealing and expunging records. The key provision of Paul and Booker’s REDEEM Act is one that gives adults convicted of nonviolent offenses a path to sealing their criminal records—something that could make finding employment much easier. It also provides for the “automatic expungement” of non-violent crimes committed before the age of 15, and sealing the records of non-violent offenders between 15 and 18. Harris thinks this issue could find new life in the new Congress. “It makes sense to pass bills like this.”

Despite the bipartisan efforts, many experts still believe that there are plenty of issues that could pose serious obstacles to compromise. Beyond the disagreement on mandatory minimums, there’s potential conflict on the role of for-profit prisons, which conservatives praise and Democrats like Booker loathe. Additionally, support for loosening drug penalties—particularly for marijuana—is growing broadly popular, but powerful Republicans remain vocal opponents. McCurdy at the ACLU says that, despite potential hang-ups, she’s encouraged by the bipartisan concern over the state of the justice system. I’m encouraged by how many diverse groups have come on board, which sends a signal to leadership that this is something the American people really want to get done,” she says.

There is one especially powerful force pushing along reform: The federal government is expected to spend nearly $7 billion on prisons this year and conservatives in charge of Congress will be under pressure to bring down costs. “With every Congress, I’m hopeful for reform,” Hurst says. “But this Congress’ argument is based on money, not humanity, which is why it’s more realistic that it’d happen.”

View article:

On These Five Things, Republicans Actually Might Work With Dems To Do Something Worthwhile

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on On These Five Things, Republicans Actually Might Work With Dems To Do Something Worthwhile

Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Citizens United Is the Supreme Court’s Worst Ruling

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared at BillMoyers.com.

In an interview with the New Republic, 81-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the current Court’s worst ruling — and the one she would most like to overrule—was Citizens United.

That decision is the one responsible, in large part, for making this midterm election a record breaker in terms of outside spending. And that’s before the really heavy spending comes into play, in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision struck down the limits on how much money corporations and unions can spend in federal elections. Ginsburg, who dissented in the case, explains here why Citizens United is top of her list and tackles the two runners-up.

I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be. So that’s number one on my list. Number two would be the part of the health care decision that concerns the commerce clause. Since 1937, the Court has allowed Congress a very free hand in enacting social and economic legislation. I thought that the attempt of the Court to intrude on Congress’s domain in that area had stopped by the end of the 1930s. Of course health care involves commerce. Perhaps number three would be Shelby County, involving essentially the destruction of the Voting Rights Act. That act had a voluminous legislative history. The bill extending the Voting Rights Act was passed overwhelmingly by both houses, Republicans and Democrats, everyone was on board. The Court’s interference with that decision of the political branches seemed to me out of order. The Court should have respected the legislative judgment. Legislators know much more about elections than the Court does. And the same was true of Citizens United. I think members of the legislature, people who have to run for office, know the connection between money and influence on what laws get passed.

In her wide-ranging interview, she goes on to discuss her concerns for women’s reproductive rights, why she’s not going to step down, despite some calls from the left for her to do so, her scathing dissent on the Hobby Lobby ruling and life as “Notorious R.B.G.”

Read the full interview at The New Republic.

Credit – 

Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Citizens United Is the Supreme Court’s Worst Ruling

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Citizens United Is the Supreme Court’s Worst Ruling

No, Congress Never Intended to Limit Obamacare Subsidies to State Exchanges

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, in which conservatives will argue that the text of Obamacare limits federal subsidies only to people who buy insurance from state-run exchanges, not from the federal exchange. Roughly speaking, there are two prongs of the conservative argument:

  1. The law contains text that explicitly limits subsidies to state-run exchanges. Democrats may not have intended this, but they screwed up in the rush to get the bill passed. That’s too bad for them, but the law is the law.
  2. Democrats actually did intend to limit subsidies to state-run exchanges. This was meant as an incentive for states to run their own exchanges rather than punting the job to the feds.

The argument over #1 revolves around textual interpretation of the statute as a whole, as well as previous Supreme Court precedent that provides federal agencies with broad latitude in how they implement regulations. The argument over #2 relies on trying to find evidence that limiting subsidies really was a topic of discussion at some point during the debate over the bill. That’s been tough: virtually no one who covered the debate (including me) remembers so much as a hint of anything like this popping up. The subsidies were always meant to be universal.

But the recollections of journalists aren’t really very germane to a Supreme Court case. The real-time analyses of the Congressional Budget Office, however, might be. This is an agency of Congress, after all, that responds to questions and requests from all members, both Democrats and Republicans. So did CBO ever model any of its cost or budget projections based on the idea that subsidies might not be available in certain states? Today Sarah Kliff points us to Theda Skocpol, who took a look at every single CBO analysis of Obamacare done in 2009 and early 2010. Here’s what she found:

CBO mostly dealt with overall budgetary issues of spending, costs, and deficits — or looked at the specific impact of health reform proposals on Medicare beneficiaries, health care providers, and citizens at various income levels. The record shows that no one from either party asked CBO to analyze or project subsidies available to people in some states but not others. In a June 2009 analysis of a draft proposal from Democrats in the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee, CBO treated subsidies as phased in. But even that proposal, which did not survive in further deliberations, stipulated that subsidies would be available in all states from 2014 — and CBO calculated costs accordingly.

After the Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, members of Congress, especially Republican critics, continued to raise issues. In its responses, CBO continued to model exchange subsidies as available nationwide. No one in either party objected or asked for alternative estimations assuming partial subsidies at any point in the 111th Congress.

It’s unclear whether this is something the Supreme Court will find germane, but it’s certainly closer to being germane than the recollections of a bunch of reporters.

It’s also possible, of course, that the court will focus solely on argument #1 and never even get to questions about the intent of Congress. Nonetheless, this is an interesting review of the CBO record. The conservative case that Democrats actively intended subsidies to be limited to state exchanges has always been remarkably flimsy. Skocpol’s review exposes it as all but nonexistent.

Original post:  

No, Congress Never Intended to Limit Obamacare Subsidies to State Exchanges

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, Congress Never Intended to Limit Obamacare Subsidies to State Exchanges