AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Upcoming Event
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
2. Some Proposed Bills for the Next Session
Proposed NH bills address abortion, heroin, pay raise
Lawmakers file notices for next session
by Josh McElveen, wmur.com, September 23, 2015
CONCORD, N.H. —Lawmakers won't return to work in Concord again until the start of next year, but they are already preparing bills to be considered in the next session.
Nearly 700 requests for new legislation were put forth. One bill would prohibit the shark fin trade in New Hampshire, while another would dedicate a month to recreational vehicles.
Several proposed bills deal with firearms, taxes and issues tailored to individual communities.
The state's heroin epidemic will likely be a topic next session as Rep. Jack Flanagan, R-Brookline, will sponsor a bill establishing a registry for convicted heroin dealers, much like the one for sex offenders.
Flanagan is also drafting a proposal to expand the state's death penalty statute to include acts of terrorism.
A bill proposed by former pilot Rep. Ken Weyler, R-Kingston, would make it illegal to shine a laser pointer at an aircraft.
Rep. Katherine Rogers, D-Concord, is proposing a bill to outlaw ownership of flamethrowers.
There are several abortion-related bills being proposed, including one prohibiting abortions beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Some bills would repeal outdated laws on the books, such as one that prohibits the use of machinery on Sundays.
One lawmaker is proposing that the Legislature get rewarded a bit more for its efforts. The bill would raise the pay for a member of the House from $100 per year to $5,000.
3. NH Business Support for Climate Change Action
partisan_action_on_climate_
Business leaders urge bipartisan action on climate change
by Dave Solomon, unionleader.com, September 23, 2015
Whether climate change is the man-made result of carbon pollution or a naturally occurring phenomenon doesn’t matter much to business owners who are losing profits and customers to the increasing frequency of catastrophic weather events and unpredictable weather patterns.
More than 100 of the state’s business leaders met last fall to assess the economic impact of the wild weather of the past decade, including three 100-year storms in the past five years. On Wednesday they issued a call to action in a 45-page report titled, “Weathering Change: N.H. Business Leaders on Risk, Resilience and a Shifting Climate.”
The effort was organized by the Environmental Defense Fund and coordinated by George Bald, former commissioner of Resources and Economic Development, and Steve Duprey, Concord developer and long-time Republican activist.
Their report, titled “N.H. and the Clean Power Plan: Doing Business in the Granite State,” was unveiled during a conference at Eversource headquarters in Manchester, with Duprey calling for Republicans and Democrats to set aside the debate over what’s causing climate change, and to at least acknowledge that it’s happening.
The report points out that New Hampshire has seen 18 presidentially declared weather disasters between 1986 and 2012, with seven of the most severe occurring since 2005. And that doesn’t include the polar vortex of 2014 or “Snowmageddon” of last winter. Weather disasters from wildfires to floods are topping the national news on an almost nightly basis.
Businesses have a long list of lost revenue, property damage, delayed openings, premature closings and direct costs associated with such events, many of which are outlined in the report.
“In my party, we love to have a great debate over what causes climate change,” said Duprey, a Republican National Committee member. “We say, let’s forget that. Set that aside and discuss as businesses how we can handle these extreme weather events.”
Well-timed report
With Republicans at the state and national level mustering opposition to the EPA’s recently released Clean Power Plan, and Pope Francis launching his U.S. visit with a call to action on climate change, Duprey’s group could not have better timed the release of their report.
But it’s a hard sell in some quarters, said Duprey, recalling his days on the campaign trail with presidential candidate Sen. John McCain. “If you think that selling Gov. Palin as vice president was tough, you should try selling climate change to Republicans in some parts of the country,” he said.
While the debate may prove intractable, the voices in “Weathering Change” argue that it should not forestall any search for solutions.
“If you assume that climate change is not man-made, that it’s natural, and we do nothing but take steps to improve our technology, 20 to 30 years from now, our children will be left with a better environment,” Duprey said. “If we do nothing, and find out 20 to 30 years from now that we were wrong, how do we look at our children and grandchildren and explain why we let this opportunity pass.”
While members of the “Weathering Change” group may not be of one mind on the source of climate change, they do agree about its impact on the bottom line.
“We found agreement that weather events are a business risk and they are becoming increasingly significant,” Duprey said. “This group is not a political group. It is predominately made up of business people, and we’re going to try to have a voice in this discussion going forward — to be an advocate for a smart and sensible approach to dealing with this.”
Call for coordination
The recommendations to emerge from the group so far include efforts to build more resilient utilities, better planning and coordination between the state emergency apparatus and municipalities, more investment in infrastructure like storm-water run-off systems that enable faster recovery from flooding.
And yes, reducing carbon emissions.
“These New Hampshire businesses want to see better planning and coordination, more resilient utilities and telecommunications, new resources for roads and infrastructure and speedier recovery from extreme weather events,” according to Roger Stephenson of Stephenson Strategic Communications, which produced the “Weathering Change” report.
“They also want to see the state work harder to diversify its energy mix to include more investment in efficiency and renewable generation,” he said.
It seems whatever your cause is these days, getting the business community behind you is a good strategy in New Hampshire, and NH Weathering Change is off to a good start at mobilizing business interests on a variety of climate and energy-related issues.
Duprey summed up the group’s goals with a quote from Mark Twain: “Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it,” he said. “Hopefully, we’re a group of people who are going to do something about it.”
More than 100 of the state’s business leaders met last fall to assess the economic impact of the wild weather of the past decade, including three 100-year storms in the past five years. On Wednesday they issued a call to action in a 45-page report titled, “Weathering Change: N.H. Business Leaders on Risk, Resilience and a Shifting Climate.”
The effort was organized by the Environmental Defense Fund and coordinated by George Bald, former commissioner of Resources and Economic Development, and Steve Duprey, Concord developer and long-time Republican activist.
Their report, titled “N.H. and the Clean Power Plan: Doing Business in the Granite State,” was unveiled during a conference at Eversource headquarters in Manchester, with Duprey calling for Republicans and Democrats to set aside the debate over what’s causing climate change, and to at least acknowledge that it’s happening.
The report points out that New Hampshire has seen 18 presidentially declared weather disasters between 1986 and 2012, with seven of the most severe occurring since 2005. And that doesn’t include the polar vortex of 2014 or “Snowmageddon” of last winter. Weather disasters from wildfires to floods are topping the national news on an almost nightly basis.
Businesses have a long list of lost revenue, property damage, delayed openings, premature closings and direct costs associated with such events, many of which are outlined in the report.
“In my party, we love to have a great debate over what causes climate change,” said Duprey, a Republican National Committee member. “We say, let’s forget that. Set that aside and discuss as businesses how we can handle these extreme weather events.”
Well-timed report
With Republicans at the state and national level mustering opposition to the EPA’s recently released Clean Power Plan, and Pope Francis launching his U.S. visit with a call to action on climate change, Duprey’s group could not have better timed the release of their report.
But it’s a hard sell in some quarters, said Duprey, recalling his days on the campaign trail with presidential candidate Sen. John McCain. “If you think that selling Gov. Palin as vice president was tough, you should try selling climate change to Republicans in some parts of the country,” he said.
While the debate may prove intractable, the voices in “Weathering Change” argue that it should not forestall any search for solutions.
“If you assume that climate change is not man-made, that it’s natural, and we do nothing but take steps to improve our technology, 20 to 30 years from now, our children will be left with a better environment,” Duprey said. “If we do nothing, and find out 20 to 30 years from now that we were wrong, how do we look at our children and grandchildren and explain why we let this opportunity pass.”
While members of the “Weathering Change” group may not be of one mind on the source of climate change, they do agree about its impact on the bottom line.
“We found agreement that weather events are a business risk and they are becoming increasingly significant,” Duprey said. “This group is not a political group. It is predominately made up of business people, and we’re going to try to have a voice in this discussion going forward — to be an advocate for a smart and sensible approach to dealing with this.”
Call for coordination
The recommendations to emerge from the group so far include efforts to build more resilient utilities, better planning and coordination between the state emergency apparatus and municipalities, more investment in infrastructure like storm-water run-off systems that enable faster recovery from flooding.
And yes, reducing carbon emissions.
“These New Hampshire businesses want to see better planning and coordination, more resilient utilities and telecommunications, new resources for roads and infrastructure and speedier recovery from extreme weather events,” according to Roger Stephenson of Stephenson Strategic Communications, which produced the “Weathering Change” report.
“They also want to see the state work harder to diversify its energy mix to include more investment in efficiency and renewable generation,” he said.
It seems whatever your cause is these days, getting the business community behind you is a good strategy in New Hampshire, and NH Weathering Change is off to a good start at mobilizing business interests on a variety of climate and energy-related issues.
Duprey summed up the group’s goals with a quote from Mark Twain: “Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it,” he said. “Hopefully, we’re a group of people who are going to do something about it.”
4. NH Rural Areas: Blue, Red, or Purple?
Rural Voters Are More Politically Diverse Than You Might Think
by Dan Barrick, nhpr.org, September 22, 2015
Listen to enough political punditry, and you could easily conclude that America's rural areas are vast swaths of Republican support, with little variety in political opinion or voter demographics.
But recent research from the University of New Hampshire's Carsey School of Public Policy undercuts that assumption. In fact, rural America is actually surprisingly varied, researchers found -- at least when it comes to election results.
Researchers arrived at this conclusion by parsing the demographic and economic divisions within rural America, and, in particular, the evolving nature of rural economies.
The paper divides rural counties into three categories: farming, recreational, and other. The farming counties are ones in which the economy is still based on agriculture. Recreational counties are ones in which amenities, services and recreational activities -- think ski resorts and other seasonal tourism destinations -- are a big source of local dollars.
And while rural communities overall tend to lean Republican in national elections, those with a recreation-based economy show increasing support for Democrats in recent elections, the paper finds. Rural areas that rely largely on farm-based economies remain bastions of Republican support.
That demographic divide is what's driving the political divisions within rural America. Residents of "recreational" rural communities, according to the paper, "tend to be wealthier, better educated, and are significantly more likely to reflect liberal stances than their peers in other rural areas."
What are the implications of these trends for New Hampshire's rural areas? The researchers categorize the state's four northern-most counties (Belknap, Carroll, Coos and Grafton) as rural counties, and all of them qualify as part of the recreation-based or "amenity" economy. The economies of these four counties, however, vary greatly, with Coos County still relying to an extent on the declining timber and manufacturing industries, and Grafton County's economy anchored in the institutions like Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.
There's a big divide, too, in the demographic pattern among these four counties. Carroll County's population grew by 33 percent between 1990 and 2010, and Belknap and Grafton counties saw more modest growth levels (19 percent and 14 percent respectively). Coos' population, however, actually shrank slightly over that period.
[To read the full report, click on the following link:
5. Despite Ayotte's Flim-Flam
Kelly Ayotte Tries More Political Grandstanding In Attempt To Cover Up Repeated Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood
by Ajacobs, nhdp.org, September 23, 2015
Ayotte Has Not Only Repeatedly Voted to Defund Planned Parenthood, But Has Also Voted to Shut Down the Government Twice
Despite Ayotte’s Political Ploy, Salon Points Out: “There Is No Actual Substantive Ideological Difference” Between Ayotte And Cruz On Defunding Planned Parenthood
Concord, N.H. – As Kelly Ayotte faces mounting outrage in New Hampshire over her repeated votes to defund Planned Parenthood, she’s doubling down on her political grandstanding to try to cover up her deeply unpopular position on blocking access to women’s health care. But once again, the facts are getting in Ayotte’s way.
Since going to Washington, Ayotte has not only voted repeatedly to defund Planned Parenthood, but she’s also already voted to shut down the government twice. WGBH’s David S. Bernstein also points out that in 2013, it was only after “taking blame” from independents that Ayotte tried to “publicly position herself” against Ted Cruz’s antics.
And despite Ayotte’s political ploy, Salon notes, “There is no actual substantive ideological difference among the Republicans fighting over Planned Parenthood and government funding… they would all prefer to see the women’s health organization stripped of its federal funding. Where they differ is a question of tactics.”
“Kelly Ayotte can try as many transparent political stunts as she’d like, but she can’t change her record of voting repeatedly to defund Planned Parenthood and her two past votes to shut down the government,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Lizzy Price. “Ayotte is clearly panicking – and rightfully so – as she faces a vulnerable re-election effort and her Republican colleagues continue highlighting for New Hampshire voters her repeated and deeply unpopular votes to defund Planned Parenthood.”
BACKGROUND
Voting to Shut Down the Government
Sep. 2012: Ayotte Voted Against Continuing Resolution To Fund The Federal Government Through March 2013. In September 2012, Ayotte voted against: “Passage of the joint resolution that would provide continuing appropriations for the federal government through March 27, 2013, at an annualized rate of $1.047 trillion in discretionary spending for regular appropriations. The measure would increase funding for most federal programs and agencies by 0.6 percent, with higher levels for certain programs, such as cybersecurity and wildfire suppression. It also would provide nearly $100 billion in war funding and $6.4 billion in advance disaster relief funds.” The joint resolution passed 62-30. [CQ, 9/22/12; H.J.Res. 117, Vote 199, 9/22/12]
- Headline Following Passage of Bill Ayotte Voted Against: “Senate Passes Funding Bill To Avoid October 1 Government Shutdown” [Reuters, 9/22/12]
Mar. 2013: Ayotte Voted Against Bill To Provide Continuing Appropriations Through FY 2013 For Government Operations. In March 2013, Ayotte voted against: “Passage of the bill that would provide continuing appropriations through fiscal 2013 for government operations, including $1.043 trillion in discretionary funds before sequestration. As amended, it would provide $517.7 billion in base discretionary funding for the Defense Department and $71.9 billion for veterans programs and military construction as well as $20.5 billion for agriculture programs, $39.6 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $50.2 billion for commerce, law enforcement and science programs. The bill would fund all other departments and agencies at their fiscal 2012 enacted levels, with adjustments for certain programs.” The bill passed 73-26. [CQ, 3/20/13; H.R. 933, Vote 44, 3/20/13]
- Headline Following Passage of Bill Ayotte Voted Against: “Congress Avoids Government Shutdown” [Politico, 3/21/13]
Voting to Defund Planned Parenthood
Mar. 2011: Ayotte Voted For Republican Continuing Resolution That Eliminated Title X Funding And Blocked Funding For Planned Parenthood. According to the National Women’s Law Center, the Republican continuing resolution, which Ayotte voted for, “Eliminates Funding for the Title X Family Planning Program, Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Planned Parenthood H.R. 1 eliminates funding for the Title X program, which for more than 40 years has provided family planning services, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other preventive health care to low-income women in need. Title X-funded health centers serve more than five million low-income women and men each year, and six in 10 women who obtain health care from a family planning center consider it to be their primary source of health care.” [National Women’s Law Center, 3/30/11; H.R. 1, Vote 36, 3/9/11]
Apr. 2011: Ayotte Again Voted To Bar Use Of Funds For Planned Parenthood. [H.Con.Res. 36, Vote 60, 4/14/11]
Aug. 2015: Ayotte Voted A Third Time To Prohibit Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood. [S. 1881, Vote 262, 8/3/15]
6. Sen. Shaheen on a Possible Shutdown
A government shutdown would hurt NH small businesses
by Jeanne Shaheen, unionleader.com, September 23, 2015
Extreme voices in Congress are once again threatening to shut down the federal government on Oct. 1. The last time they did this — a 16-day shutdown in October 2013 — it caused havoc across the economy, including the loss of an estimated 120,000 jobs. It is reckless to threaten a government shutdown for any reason, and it is wrong for a minority to try to force its will on others through threats and ultimatums.
With the possibility of yet another shutdown looming, I am especially concerned about the entirely predictable damage it would inflict on small businesses and their employees across the Granite State.
The disruptions and losses resulting from the federal closure in 2013 are still fresh in my memory. Many businesses of all sizes suffered losses. But the impacts on small businesses, which typically have very thin cash reserves and rely on day-to-day revenues to conduct normal operations, were especially significant. Many of their employees were laid off, at least temporarily, and some businesses couldn’t make payroll. As a consequence, countless working families couldn’t pay their rent or had to slash spending on groceries and gas. In total, the 2013 shutdown cost our economy $24 billion.
Two weeks into the shutdown, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship convened a hearing where small business owners and lenders testified about the damage they were experiencing. They voiced exasperation at Congress’s inability to cooperate and pass a budget, and they condemned what one witness called “this man-made crisis.” We learned that the worst damage from the shutdown was being experienced by enterprises engaged in tourism and outdoor recreation, as well as those engaged in federal contracting or applying for federal loans.
Many businesses were hurt by frozen government contracts and stalled Small Business Administration loans; the agency was unable to process $140 million in loan guarantees because more than 400 of its employees were furloughed. With the Internal Revenue Service closed and hundreds of its employees furloughed, many small businesses lost access to capital because banks and other lenders could not obtain income data or verify Social Security numbers.
Tourism and outdoor recreation businesses were hit especially hard because they rely heavily on visitors to America’s national parks, historic sights, trails and waterways — and most sites were shuttered. Nationwide, our national parks employ 24,000 people and support nearly 250,000 private-sector jobs, mostly with small businesses. The timing of the shutdown — at the peak of the autumn tourist season — was especially damaging. An estimated $150 million per day was lost in travel spending, and $76 million per day was lost because the National Parks were closed. The fall tourist season is critically important to New Hampshire. Between September and the end of November, we welcome nearly 8 million visitors who spend more than $1 billion. Local stores, restaurants and attractions count on a successful fall season to meet their bottom lines.
One of our biggest attractions is the White Mountain National Forest, which draws more visitors than either the Yellowstone or Yosemite national parks. Because the 2013 shutdown came at White Mountain’s busiest time of year, visitors were shut out of important services, restroom facilities were locked, garbage went uncollected and campgrounds were closed. As word spread about the lack of amenities, many tourists chose to stay home.
Across the national economy, the 2013 shutdown killed jobs, cut growth and caused the economic confidence index to fall to its lowest level in nearly two years. Two out of every five Americans reported that they cut back their spending because of the disruption. Why in the world would Congress want to inflict a replay of this unnecessary disaster on small businesses and working families?
The U.S. economy and our struggling middle class do not need another manufactured crisis from Congress. Millions of small business owners are managing their affairs and budgeting responsibly. It’s time for Congress to do the same.
With the possibility of yet another shutdown looming, I am especially concerned about the entirely predictable damage it would inflict on small businesses and their employees across the Granite State.
The disruptions and losses resulting from the federal closure in 2013 are still fresh in my memory. Many businesses of all sizes suffered losses. But the impacts on small businesses, which typically have very thin cash reserves and rely on day-to-day revenues to conduct normal operations, were especially significant. Many of their employees were laid off, at least temporarily, and some businesses couldn’t make payroll. As a consequence, countless working families couldn’t pay their rent or had to slash spending on groceries and gas. In total, the 2013 shutdown cost our economy $24 billion.
Two weeks into the shutdown, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship convened a hearing where small business owners and lenders testified about the damage they were experiencing. They voiced exasperation at Congress’s inability to cooperate and pass a budget, and they condemned what one witness called “this man-made crisis.” We learned that the worst damage from the shutdown was being experienced by enterprises engaged in tourism and outdoor recreation, as well as those engaged in federal contracting or applying for federal loans.
Many businesses were hurt by frozen government contracts and stalled Small Business Administration loans; the agency was unable to process $140 million in loan guarantees because more than 400 of its employees were furloughed. With the Internal Revenue Service closed and hundreds of its employees furloughed, many small businesses lost access to capital because banks and other lenders could not obtain income data or verify Social Security numbers.
Tourism and outdoor recreation businesses were hit especially hard because they rely heavily on visitors to America’s national parks, historic sights, trails and waterways — and most sites were shuttered. Nationwide, our national parks employ 24,000 people and support nearly 250,000 private-sector jobs, mostly with small businesses. The timing of the shutdown — at the peak of the autumn tourist season — was especially damaging. An estimated $150 million per day was lost in travel spending, and $76 million per day was lost because the National Parks were closed. The fall tourist season is critically important to New Hampshire. Between September and the end of November, we welcome nearly 8 million visitors who spend more than $1 billion. Local stores, restaurants and attractions count on a successful fall season to meet their bottom lines.
One of our biggest attractions is the White Mountain National Forest, which draws more visitors than either the Yellowstone or Yosemite national parks. Because the 2013 shutdown came at White Mountain’s busiest time of year, visitors were shut out of important services, restroom facilities were locked, garbage went uncollected and campgrounds were closed. As word spread about the lack of amenities, many tourists chose to stay home.
Across the national economy, the 2013 shutdown killed jobs, cut growth and caused the economic confidence index to fall to its lowest level in nearly two years. Two out of every five Americans reported that they cut back their spending because of the disruption. Why in the world would Congress want to inflict a replay of this unnecessary disaster on small businesses and working families?
The U.S. economy and our struggling middle class do not need another manufactured crisis from Congress. Millions of small business owners are managing their affairs and budgeting responsibly. It’s time for Congress to do the same.
AND NATIONALLY
7. He Kept Us What?????
Keep America Safe...from Bush III
by Robert Creamer, thedemocraticstrategist.org, September 22, 2015
Here is a news flash for Jeb: George W. Bush did not begin his term on September 12, 2001. The worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on his watch. And it occurred after he had systematically ignored intelligence warnings - before 9/11 - that Osama Bin Laden "was determined to strike the U.S." and that his terrorist network might try to hijack planes to do it.
In fact terrorism was a low priority for the Bush Administration before 9/11. And just six months after 9/11, when asked about apprehending the mastermind of those attack, Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him."
Instead his administration was busy cherry picking intelligence to justify an attack on Iraq that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
The Iraq War did anything but "keep us safe." It was based on false "intelligence" that Saddam Hussein had non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It cost over 4,000 American lives and maimed or injured tens of thousands more. It cost America trillions of dollars. Worst of all it served as a recruitment tool for Al Qaida and other terrorist networks around the world.
In fact, rather than "keep us safe," a 2006 intelligence report concluded that the War in Iraq "made the overall terrorism problem worse". It also kicked over the sectarian hornet's nest in the Middle East and created the conditions that spawned Al Qaida in Iraq that ultimately turned into ISIL (there was no Al Qaida in Iraq before the invasion).
Of course you can understand why Jeb Bush insists that his brother "kept us safe". He has surrounded himself with many of the very same foreign policy advisors that presided over the worst foreign policy record in half a century.
They are the same crowd that most recently tried and failed to sink the six-nation agreement to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without a war.
After a while it gets sickening to listen to their attempts to rewrite history and posture as tough foreign policy geniuses when in fact they conducted a foreign policy that put America and our interests at more risk and sent thousands of young men and women to their deaths in an unnecessary elective war.
But the thing that is most galling is their refusal to take any responsibility for allowing the nation to be subjected to the worst attack on the homeland in 70 years.
It is simply outrageous that the Bush crowd would have the audacity to say they "kept us safe" after presiding over the 9/11 debacle - and the inept, ineffective, ideologically driven response that followed.
The Republicans have been fixated for years on the tragic death of one American Ambassador and his aides in Benghazi - even though he was knowingly taking risks to advance America's foreign policy goals in Libya and there is not one shred of evidence of official wrong doing.
Can you imagine the investigations and vicious smears of Democrats that would have ensued had Al Gore been President at the time of the 9/11 attacks?
Democrats did not use those horrible attacks to their political advantage.
But the chutzpa required for Jeb Bush to argue that George Bush actually kept America safe is simply beyond the pale - and can't be ignored.
Of course it wasn't just Bush's failed defense and foreign policies that left everyday Americans less secure. His trickle down economics lead to the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression; cost 8 million Americans their jobs; and did economic damage that, years later, has just begun to heal.
George Bush left President Obama an economy that was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month when he took office in 2009. And the collapse of the financial markets on Bush's watch whipped out $2 trillion in retirement savings.
Is that what he means by "keeping us safe".
George Bush sped up climate change with an energy policy written in secret by Dick Cheney and representatives of the Oil companies.
And who can forget how he kept the people of the New Orleans and the Gulf Coast "safe" when they were struck by Hurricane Katrina. Over a thousand Americans died because the levies failed in New Orleans and the Bush Administration's response was infamously inept.
"Keeping us safe?"
https://youtu.be/on9q1GrE7Ys
...The evidence is clear. The best ways to keep America truly safe are never to forget just what George W. Bush did to America -- and to keep Jeb Bush and the entire Bush gang a "safe" distance away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the levers of American political power.
8. Middle Class Blues
New Census Data Show that the Middle Class Is Not Recovering Fast Enough
by Alex Rowell and David Madland, americanprogress.org, Wednes
The new data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau show that America’s middle class is still struggling to fully recover from the Great Recession and more than four decades of unequal growth. Typical household incomes remain far below 1990s highs and, in fact, are close to the level they were in 1989. Meanwhile, middle-class families struggle to keep up with the rising costs of key components of the middle-class lifestyle.
The precarious position of the middle class is plainly visible when examining trends in thenational median income. The real median household income in 2014 dollars fell a statistically insignificant $805 in the past year, from $54,462 in 2013 to $53,657.*
Typical household incomes have been effectively stagnant nationally since reaching their postrecession lows in 2011, with no statistically significant year-to-year changes. This is unacceptable considering the ground that middle-class families have to make up: Incomes have been falling or flat since 1999’s peak at $57,843, nearly $4,200 more than families took home in 2014.
While middle-class incomes have flatlined, the economy has certainly grown since the recession ended. Unfortunately, not all families are seeing this economic growth make its way into their paychecks, even though the losses during the recession were shared among all levels of income. In 2014, the top 20 percent of households took home a majority of U.S. income, 51.2 percent. And a large share of that income was concentrated among the richest 5 percent of households, which received 21.9 percent of the nation’s income in 2014. That means that the middle class and those living in poverty took home less than half of the economic pie, despite constituting the vast majority of the population. Unless further action is taken to ensure that all Americans benefit from the growing economy, these long-term trends all point to increasing economic inequality and a shrinking middle class.
Middle-class incomes failing to keep up with gains for the rich is not a new story. In fact, the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has been trending downward over the past few decades since its peak in 1968. While middle-class households took home a majority of U.S. income then—53.2 percent—their share has fallen dramatically by 7.5 percentage points to just 45.7 percent in 2014. This is not an insignificant amount of money: 7.5 percent of U.S. aggregate income is $708 billion, meaning that if middle-class families were still receiving the same share of income as families did in 1968, their annual incomes would be more than $9,400 higher on average.
The strength of the American economy depends on a thriving middle class. These Census Bureau data make clear that there is still work to be done to ensure that all Americans fully share in the economic recovery; we must reverse the decades-long decline of the middle class. Policymakers should act to improve workers’ wages by increasing the minimum wage and reducing barriers that keep workers from collectively bargaining. Tax reforms should be crafted to benefit the middle class, not those who are currently enjoying the majority of income growth. Lawmakers should increase public investments to help create new jobs that pay middle-class wages and institute workplace protections, such as paid leave, that would help keep people in the labor force. Taking action is critical. America’s middle class—and its entire economy—cannot afford to continue on a path in which the benefits of economic growth are not broadly shared.
9. Wrong in All Aspects...and Politically Perilous
Why the Republican Assault on Planned Parenthood is Morally Wrong and Economically Stupid
by Robert Reich, robertreich.org, September 20, 2015
The Republican assault on Planned Parenthood is filled with lies and distortions, and may even lead to a government shutdown.
The only thing we can say for sure about it is it’s already harming women’s health.
For distortions, start with presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s contention at last week’s Republican debate that a video shows “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ “
Wrong. In fact, the anti-abortion group that made that shock video added stock footage of a fully-formed fetus in order to make it seem as if that’s what Planned Parenthood intended.
But as Donald Trump has demonstrated with cunning bravado, presidential candidates can say anything these days regardless of the truth and get away with it.
At least elected members of Congress should be held to a standard of responsible public service.
Yet last Friday, the House voted 241-187 to block Planned Parenthood’s federal funds for a year.
This may lead to another government shutdown. Funding for the government runs out at the end of the month, and several dozen House Republicans have said they won’t vote for a funding bill that includes money for Planned Parenthood.
This is, quite frankly, nuts.
A strong moral case can be made that any society that respects women must respect their right to control their own bodies.
There’s also an important economic case for effective family planning.
Public investments in family planning—enabling women to plan, delay, or avoid pregnancy– make economic sense because reproductive rights are also productive rights.
When women have control over their lives they can contribute even more to the economy, better break the glass ceiling, equalize the pay gap, and much more.
Consider Colorado’s highly successful family planning program. Over the past six years, the Colorado health department has offered teenagers and low-income women free long-acting birth control that prevents pregnancy over several years.
As a result, pregnancy and abortion rates plunged—by about 40 percent among teenagers across the state between 2009 to 2013.
In 2009, half of all first births to women in the poorest areas of Colorado occurred before they turned 21.
But by 2014, half of first births did not occur until the women had turned 24. This difference gives young women time to finish their education and obtain better jobs.
Nationally, evidence shows that public investments in family planning result in net public savings of about $13.6 billion a year—over $7 for every public dollar spent.
This sum doesn’t include the billions of additional dollars saved by enabling women – who may not be financially able to raise a child and do not want to have a child or additional children – to stay out of poverty.
Despite what Republicans claim, Planned Parenthood doesn’t focus on providing abortions.
In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, its services included nearly nearly 500,000 breast examinations, 400,000 Pap tests, nearly 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted illnesses and treatments.
Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive services are one of the major reasons we don’t have more abortions in the United States.
The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine calls Planned Parenthood’s contraception services one of “the single greatest effort[s] to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that result in abortions.”
Planned Parenthood’s services are particularly important to poor and lower-income women. At least 78 percent of its patients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
Planned Parenthood gets around $450 million a year from the federal government. Most of this is Medicaid reimbursements for low-income patients, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The rest is mainly for contraceptive counseling, pregnancy testing and other services.
Federal money can only be used for abortion in rare circumstances.
Even so, over the last five years congressional Republicans have cut 10 percent of the Title X federal budget for family planning, which pays for services such as cancer screenings and HIV tests.
This never used to be a partisan issue. After all, Title X was signed into law in 1970 by Richard Nixon.
Obviously, the crass economic numbers don’t nearly express the full complexity of the national debate around abortion and family planning.
But they help make the case that we all benefit when society respects women to control their bodies and plan their families.
The attack on Planned Parenthood is not just morally wrong. It’s also economically stupid.
Hillary: Republicans don’t just oppose abortion. They oppose family planning and contraception.
by Greg Sargent, The Plum Line, washingtonpost.com, September 23, 2015
If you want to get a sense of how the politics of the battle over Planned Parenthood may play out this fall, and possibly in the 2016 race, it’s worth watching Hillary Clinton’s long interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board.
Conservatives are demanding that GOP leaders use the looming government shutdown battle to eviscerate Planned Parenthood, by refusing to support funding for the government that doesn’t also defund the group. GOP leaders have dismissed this strategy as borderline lunacy. But some GOP presidential candidates support the idea, and this group isn’t confined to far right conservatives like Ted Cruz: Marco Rubio has signaled some sympathy with this approach. Meanwhile, establishment candidates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich have at a minimum endorsed defunding the group, if not diving headlong off a shutdown cliff over it.
Clinton has defended Planned Parenthood before, but in the portion of the Des Moines Register interview in which she discussed the group, she telegraphed a more detailed response. Asked about the fetal tissue videos, Clinton immediately brushed off that part of the question, noting that fact-checkers had debunke
“I will continue to defend Planned Parenthood, because services that Planned Parenthood provides are broad, and necessary for millions of American women. Five hundred thousand breast screening exams. A lot of other screening programs that are carried out. Family planning and contraceptive testing for HIV AIDS.
“The Republican have made it clear in recent years that they are not only opposed to abortion, which they have been for quite some time. They’re increasingly opposed to family planning and contraception. This is a direct assault on a woman’s right to choose health care. Forget about abortion, which is something that a limited number of Planned Parenthood facilities perform, with not a penny of federal money.
“The money they want to cut off…is money that goes to health services. That is why it’s important that we continue to try to educate the public and draw a very clear line in defense of Planned Parenthood.”
The Clinton camp appears to have calculated that an immediate pivot away from the videos and the controversial topic of abortion, and to the group’s role in providing a range of health services to women, is not hard to pull off. And that the politics of this battle are worse for Republicans over the long term, particularly for a general election.
Wonkblog’s Danielle Paquette recently reported that nixing Planned Parenthood’s $500 million in annual public funds would have “broad ramifications, especially for low-income women who rely on subsidized services for birth control.” Paquette cited PP data showing that 80 percent of its clients receive services designed to prevent unintended pregnancies, while only three percent of its services each year are abortions. And she noted that the group provides birth control services to large percentages of women who seek those services in many states.
By vowing to “educate the public” and draw a “clear line” on what defunding Planned Parenthood would really mean, Clinton is in effect telegraphing what Democrats will do if and when this heats up and gets litigated in 2016: try to cast this as a Republican assault on family planning and women’s health care services, by pointing out that killing the group’s funding actually woulddefund those services.
Republicans who question the push for a shutdown, such as New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, have raised doubts about its prospects for success. But it would not be surprising if the smarter GOP strategists also recognized that the particular attack Clinton launched above — aside from whether there is even a government shutdown at all — has the potential to be very damaging to Republicans. After all, Obama used it in 2012, attacking Mitt Romney’s suggestion that he would “get rid” of Planned Parenthood to paint him as hidebound and out of touch on contraception and women’s health issues. Obama campaign focus groups found Romney’s remarks to be a terrible turnoff for undecided women.
That exchange unfolded without the benefit of a government shutdown fight over the group. The battle was only over whether Planned Parenthood should be funded. The shutdown aside, all the GOP candidates do favor defunding the group. A shutdown only draws more attention to an underlying dispute that the Clinton camp already appears to relish, as she is (of course) a female candidate who hopes to make this election in part about family and women’s economics.
To be sure, it’s certainly possible that the recently surfaced fetal tissue videos could turn this battle into a more perilous one for Clinton. But it’s also plausible that even if there is widespread public disgust over the videos and real polarization around abortion, shifting the debate to one over whether we should continue funding the group’s family planning, women’s health and contraceptive services won’t be that hard to do.
C. http://www.washingtonmonthly.
Planned Parenthood Perilous Issue for GOPers, Even Without a Government Shutdown
by Ed Kilgore, washingtonmonthly.com, September 23, 2015
One of the important things to keep in mind about the battle among Republicans over whether or not to risk or execute a government shutdown over the “defund Planned Parenthood” demands is that this is a fight over strategy and tactics, not goals or principles. If, for example, there is a single Republican presidential candidate who does not favor “defunding Planned Parenthood,” I’m not sure who that would be. And when a defunding vote in the shutdown-averse Senate happens tomorrow, I doubt more than one or two Republicans will oppose it.
This is important because Republicans who oppose the insanity of another government shutdown should not get too much credit for moderation. It seems Hillary Clinton understands this, because she and her campaign are going to a lot of trouble to defend Planned Parenthood’s essential role in women’s health and contraception services, not to mention the less controversial and unquestionably legal early-term abortions that represent nearly all of the procedures performed at some—by no means all—PP clinics. And as Greg Sargent notes this afternoon at the Plum Line, defending Planned Parenthood worked pretty well for Democrats in 2012:
After all, Obama used it in 2012, attacking Mitt Romney’s suggestion that he would “get rid” of Planned Parenthood to paint him as hidebound and out of touch on contraception and women’s health issues. Obama campaign focus groups found Romney’s remarks to be a terrible turnoff for undecided women.
That exchange unfolded without the benefit of a government shutdown fight over the group. The battle was only over whether Planned Parenthood should be funded. The shutdown aside, all the GOP candidates do favor defunding the group. A shutdown only draws more attention to an underlying dispute that the Clinton camp already appears to relish, as she is (of course) a female candidate who hopes to make this election in part about family and women’s economics.
To be sure, it’s certainly possible that the recently surfaced fetal tissue videos could turn this battle into a more perilous one for Clinton. But it’s also plausible that even if there is widespread public disgust over the videos and real polarization around abortion, shifting the debate to one over whether we should continue funding the group’s family planning, women’s health and contraceptive services won’t be that hard to do.
And if Republicans do shut down the government over Planned Parenthood, or appear to be pandering to those demanding that they do so, they’ll look even further out of touch. As I’ve said before, this could very well be another Terri Schiavo Moment for the GOP, where the party’s big debts to the antichoice movement are called in. If it again entraps, say, Jeb Bush, that’s even more appropriate.
FINALLY
No comments:
Post a Comment