Click here to view this media I hope Anthony Weiner is right here and that if our overly partisan Supreme Court does strike down the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act that it does lead to the return of the public option. Here’s more from TPM where Weiner expressed some similar sentiments to the ones made here with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. Weiner Says SCOTUS Will Rule Against Health Care Law, Paving Way For Public Option : This is more in the spirit of partypooping than of celebration. But on the first anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, one of the law’s most dogged defenders, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), admitted he thinks the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate. It’s not that he thinks the mandate is unconstitutional, but that the court has become so partisan, that its conservative justices will rule against President Obama in a 5-4 decision. He wasn’t glum about it, though — if the mandate goes he said it will pave the way for Congress to pass the public option. “If lightning strikes, and it turns out that as many of us believe, the Supreme Court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate — big deal,” Weiner said, expressing a ‘so what?!’ sentiment. “Big deal!” Read on… I think potentially a bigger story our media and our politicians are ignoring is what’s happening in Vermont, where they’re poised to pass a single-payer health care plan for their state. If they can make this work there, you could see it spread to other states and eventually, hopefully, the rest of the country. If memory serves, this is the same type of scenario that brought Canada their health care program. It started in one province and eventually spread to the rest of the country. It’s a huge uphill battle with lots of special interests poised to fight against it, but who knows. Maybe we win one there and move towards not allowing the insurance companies continuing to rob us blind so they can take care of their stock holders and their CEO’s instead of the people they’re supposed to be bringing a service to. Vermont’s Single-Payer Salvation : The Green Mountain State is poised to abolish most forms of private health insurance. Three weeks after the House of Representatives voted to repeal last year’s landmark healthcare reform legislation, and one week after a federal judge ruled the bill’s insurance mandate unconstitutional, Vermont’s leaders decided to take matters into their own hands. On February 8, newly inaugurated Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin unveiled his plan for a publicly funded single-payer healthcare system, which was introduced into the state’s legislature. If enacted, which appears likely, it will be the first system of its kind in the United States and Vermont would become the first state to abolish most forms of private health insurance. “In five years, I predict the United States will go through another major debate of how to reform the healthcare system,” Harvard School of Public Health Professor William Hsiao told the state’s legislators in January, noting his belief that the federal reform legislation passed in March 2010 will not solve the nation’s healthcare crisis. “The question for Vermont is, do you want to walk ahead of the United States? Do you want to be a model for the United States?” Last year, lawmakers passed a bill to hire a team of consultants led by Hsiao—an economist who helped to develop universal healthcare plans in China and reform Medicare and Medicaid in the 1970s—to design a new healthcare system for the Green Mountain State. According to Hsiao’s research, about 32,000 people, or roughly five percent of the state’s population, would still be uninsured after federal reform measures take full effect in 2014. (Fifty seven thousand, or 9 percent, of Vermonters are currently uninsured.) What Hsiao and his team ended up recommending to the state was a single-payer system that would ensure coverage for all residents. An independent public body would oversee the system and contract out administration of all claims. Private insurers could compete for this work, as they have done for years to administer the state’s Medicare program. The bill, currently in committee, would take an estimated three to six years to implement. Read on…
Continue reading …While Peter King holds hearings on homegrown jihadists, the growing menace of white supremacist terror goes unremarked As emerging reports would have it, Kevin William Harpham, 36, who is accused of setting a bomb to go off at the Martin Luther King Jr Day parade in Spokane, Washington, was yet another “lone wolf” terrorist, acting at his own behest and on his own behalf. Even groups on the racist, radical far right that so clearly inspired him are rushing to disown and denounce the indicted man. Regardless of whether he was a “member” of an organised group, there can yet be no doubt that Harpham saw himself as part of a movement – one that has an especially broad reach in the age of Obama, and roots as deep as American culture itself. The vision of a black president has given the racist far right one of its biggest boosts since the civil rights era of the 1960s. Figures toted up by the Southern Poverty Law Centre suggest a dramatic rise in the numbers of organized groups : their numbers grew by 40% from 2008 to 2009, and an additional 22% from 2009 to 2010, bringing the total to 2,145 groups. It’s difficult to know precisely what these numbers mean, since these groups are constantly changing names, dissolving, reforming or springing up, and few of them maintain public membership rolls. What is nonetheless clear is that a strong far right movement has re-emerged, and what unites it is the age-old American doctrine of nativism, born out of fear of some dark outsider sneaking in to steal the white man’s homeland and his hegemony. Nativist thinkers are spread all over the map, but the strongest current comes in the form of the Sovereign Citizen movement , or what used to be called the Posse Comitatus and before the posse, the Silver Shirts . For the old Posse adherents and their contemporary progeny, the white Aryan man is the only true “sovereign” over his land and his life. White women serve beneath him; black and brown “mud people” are menials worthy only of disdain; and Jews (who do not qualify as white) are usually behind it all, running the economic and financial systems through a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. They do not admit to being subject to the laws and dicates of the US government; they eschew social security, cars and drivers’ licences, and won’t pay taxes. For the true sovereign, the sheriff is the highest legitimate law enforcement official in the land, and a jury of his (white male) peers the only legitimate government body. These beliefs are underpinned by the religion of Christian Identity , which claim white sovereigns are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, who on their long trek out of the Middle East made their way up through Scotland and Ireland over to the United States. Different facets of the nativist movement have enjoyed periodic heydeys in 20th-century America – first in the 1910s and 20s, when anti-immigrant sentiments were rife and membership in the Ku Klux Klan reached more than 2m. In the 1930s and 1940s, they penetrated the edges of the political mainstream through figures like Father Charles Coughlin, who was the Glenn Beck of his day . A Catholic priest and radio personality, Coughlin was at once enormously popular and virulently antisemitic and anti-New Deal. His ally Gerald LK Smith, leader of the Share Our Wealth campaign, was evocative of some of today’s more extreme Tea Party candidates. The Klans and related groups had another resurgence in response to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In the 1980s, groups like the Posse, which drew together white supremacy and Christian Identity with anti-government “patriot” sentiments, found particularly fertile ground for recruitment among dispossessed Midwestern farmers. While figures like David Duke ran for political office, others, like the violent group The Order , carried out bombings, bank robberies and murders, and engaged in blazing shootouts with federal agents, all in service of their plan to build a white homeland. After the Oklahoma City bombing, with its perpetrators’ ties to the militia movement (and, most likely, to other far right groups as well), the movement tended to dig in further underground. Just as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were deemed to be acting alone, the periodic bursts of far right violence – whether they be an attempted bombing, the murder of an abortion doctor, attacks on undocumented immigrants or on Muslims, or the shooting of a congresswoman – are attributed to “lone wolves” rather than to organised plots by any particular group. Yet the distinction belies the reality of a movement that has long encouraged its adherents to act in “leaderless resistance” cells or carry out one-man guerrilla attacks (and become celebrated as “Phineas Priests”, named for the Bible story of a man who executed an interracial couple). The alleged MLK Day parade bomber, Kevin William Harpham, may or may not have consider himself a lone wolf if, as he is accused, he put together a backpack bomb laden with shrapnel dipped in rat poison to induce bleeding and placed it on the route of the parade. But there can be little doubt as to where his inspiration came from. Bill Morlin, formerly a reporter for the Spokane Spokesman-Review and now an independent investigator, traced Harpham’s background in a comprehensive report for the publication Hatewatch . In the military, Harpham was stationed at Fort Lewis in Washington, home base for 320 far right wingers. He was once a member of the racist far right National Alliance, and had left various postings on extremist websites suggesting he had had enough of the “international Jewish conspiracy”, which, among other things, he held responsible for 9/11. Leonard Zeskind, a leading expert on the radical far right and author, says that today, “the main tendency of organisations is mainstreaming … The movement imperative is towards the Tea Parties, running for office, anti-immigrant mongering – not roadside bombs.” None of this, of course, prevents people from being “recruited” to their ideas and choosing to act on them. One far right leader said much the same in an interview following the attempted bombing in Spokane. “There are many aspects to the white supremacist movement,” Shaun Winkler, Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the KKK in Idaho, told a local television station . “There are those of us that are on the political side, and there are those of us that are revolutionary. It sounds as if this individual was on the revolutionary end rather than the political. And there are a lot of lone wolves out there. People that are sympathetic to us, but people that we don’t know.” Historically, federal law enforcement has given little credence to the power of the nativist current in American society, and has paid relatively little attention to the activities of nativist groups. That has perhaps changed since the election of Barack Obama, whose presidency has so focused and emboldened the racist far right. Yet, despite their obvious threat, there are no competitors to Peter King, holding congressional hearings on the recruitment of homegrown jihadist terrorists . The far right Global terrorism Tea Party movement US immigration Race issues Washington state James Ridgeway guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Rules governing Commons microblogging have been confused since deputy Speaker told MPs not to use Twitter to update followers from house Smartphones and iPads should be allowed into the chamber of the House of Commons, a committee report proposing to overthrow the ban on Twitter in parliament has said. The procedures committee has ruled that MPs should be allowed to use such electronic devices during parliamentary debates provided they are on silent and “used in a way that does not impair decorum” The new rules would also allow them to refer to electronic devices rather than paper notes when making speeches. The committee recommended keeping a ban on laptop computers or devices larger than A4 paper because of a lack of space in the crowded chamber. The committee chair Greg Knight, the MP for East Yorkshire, said the group had taken a “common sense approach” to modern technology that would stop MPs feeling obliged to miss chamber debates in order to catch up with vital emails. “In the modern age, it’s easy for your inbox to fill up but … [this measure] allows MPs to attend a debate and still keep an eye on their inbox as long as it doesn’t impair decorum. “At the moment, we have the odd situation where we can have a wad of notes an inch thick but, if you have your notes on an iPad, you can’t refer to them. We have to acknowledge the need for change.” But the debate has split MPs, with some warning that the changes could undermine the principle of parliamentary debate. The Conservative MP for North Wiltshire, James Gray, voted against the report, saying the changes could lead to a “worrying change in the atmosphere” in parliament. “The excessive use of any [electronic] device … could become an epidemic which would both be very unattractive to those observing our proceedings and also diminish the power of our debates,” he said. “MPs should be in the chamber of the House of Commons and in committee to listen carefully to arguments advanced by colleagues and be ready to intervene or reply in their own speeches.” Rules governing Commons microblogging have been confused since the deputy Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, told MPs in January not to use Twitter to update their followers from the house. In its final report, the committee acknowledged that there were potential disadvantages to the changes if they were used inappropriately by lobbyists to influence members in the chamber. Knight also said there was a risk of embarrassment if MPs failed to act with discretion, adding: “Rightly, there would be an outcry if, whilst a minister was announcing deaths in Afghanistan, someone was tweeting about their holidays … but we are relying on the good sense of members. To pretend this [technology] doesn’t exist would just be backwards.” The report said 225 MPs now tweet, and the committee had received a large volume of correspondence during its consultation. The Commons will have to decide whether to accept the recommendations in a vote, which is expected to take place in the next eight weeks. If accepted, the changes proposed by the committee will be given a one-year trial. Twitter Internet House of Commons Rowenna Davis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …There’s no sign of Speaker John Boehner’s promised “jobs, jobs, jobs.” Instead, extremist teabagger Republicans are busily trying to take care of the already-rich, kick people when they’re down, and further weaken the ability of those who do have jobs to strike against employers: All around the country, right-wing legislators are asking middle class Americans to pay for budget deficits caused mainly by a recession caused by Wall Street; they are attacking workers’ collective bargaining rights, which has provoked a huge Main Street Movement to fight back. Now, a group of House Republicans is launching a new stealth attack against union workers. GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Tim Scott (SC), Scott Garrett (NJ), Dan Burton (IN), and Louie Gohmert (TX) have introduced H.R. 1135, which states that it is designed to “provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs.” Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer. The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.” Yet removing entire families from eligibility while a single adult family member is striking would have a chilling effect on workers who are considering going on strike for better wages, benefits, or working conditions — something that is especially alarming in light of the fact that unions are one of the fundamental building blocks of the middle class that allow people to earn wages that keep them off food stamps . But here’s the punchline: Striking workers have been ineligible for food stamps for years . (The only way a striker is eligible right now is if you met the eligibility standards before you went on strike — and if you belong to a union, odds are, you didn’t.) So not only are teabagger Republicans just plain mean and pandering to special interests, they’re stupid to boot! Their bill also rolls back back spending on government assistance programs back to 2007 levels, plus inflation, once unemployment falls below 6.5 percent. (Well, at least we know that won’t be anytime soon!) New Jersey’s Rep. Scott Garrett, a teabagger hero, is also busy trying to slash funding for the SEC – but denies that he’s doing it. (Says the fact that its spending has gone up so much since the market crash proves the agency has plenty of funding, thank you very much!) Oh, and he’s one of the Republicans who voted against extending the budget. He’s also the guy who’s pushing for every bill to show “constitutional authority” for why Congress has the right to pass the bill. Rep. Jim Jordan, the other person who wants to kick voters when they’re down? Was he working on “jobs, jobs, jobs”? Nope. He’s chair of the extremist Republican Study Committee , a caucus that exists to push House Republicans Further. To. The. Right. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) wasn’t working on “jobs, jobs, jobs,” either. He voted against the budget extension, too. Instead, he introduced a nasty little states-right bill: “Last week, President Obama made an unprecedented decision to declare a Federal law unconstitutional and thereby abdicate his own constitutional responsibility to uphold and defend that law. Activist judges, and now an activist President, have been trying to unilaterally define marriage for too long. This issue should instead be decided once and for all by the American people and the states. “That is why I have introduced the “Marriage Protection Act” which simply states that no Federal Courts will have jurisdiction to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage . Instead, the definition of same-sex unions would be determined by the people through their State legislatures or via referendum. And he also sponsored a bill that would strip President Obama “of his power to waive a law requiring him to move the embassy to Jerusalem.” Rep. Louis Gohmert? He’s from Texas and the author of the famous “terror babies” story. A real American! Last but not least, South Carolina’s Rep. Tim Scott. The poor guy’s really got to prove himself – first, because he voted for the continuing resolution that extended the budget for three weeks, but also because he’s a black Republican. So he’s a member of the Club for Growth, plus he just introduced the Rising Tides Act of 2011. And what does it do, exactly? It cuts the corporate income tax rate by 10% on companies making more than $10 million annually. Where on earth are those jobs, jobs, jobs?
Continue reading …NPR's Julie Rovner put the best liberal spin on the one-year anniversary of ObamaCare becoming law on Wednesday's Morning Edition. When an opponent of the legislation stated that supporters would try to “create constituencies that will fight to preserve it…[by] spending hundreds of billions of dollars on health insurance subsidies,” Rover added that “those are just a few of the law's benefits.” The correspondent led her report with sound bites from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who marveled over the “landmark law,” and Senator Orrin Hatch, who labeled it “one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of this country.” She continued by focusing on the opponents of ObamaCare: ROVNER: In fact, sowing seeds of doubt about the law is all part of opponents' strategy , says Michael Cannon, head of health policy for the libertarian Cato Institute. That's because, at the moment, with Democrats still in control of the Senate and presidency, opponents know they can't actually do much to change the law. MICHAEL CANNON, CATO INSTITUTE: So, if you want a legislative fix to ObamaCare, if you want to repeal it, you have to keep it unpopular between now and January of 2013. ROVNER: That's the soonest Republicans could gain enough control to make the law go away. So what needs to happen between now and then? CANNON: You try to keep the law from taking root, and you try to educate the public about all its harmful effects. ROVNER: That's why all the defunding and repeal votes in Congress, not to mention the dozens of lawsuits challenging the law's constitutionality. Instead of noting that the majority of Americans are still opposed to ObamaCare, even a year after its passage, Rovner set up her spin about the law: ROVNER: Of course, if you're supporting the law, what you want is to sink those roots in so deep as to make the law, well, unrepealable. Cannon knows a little something about that too. CANNON: You want to create constituencies that will fight to preserve it, and by sending $250 checks to seniors, you may be creating constituencies; by giving tax credits and subsidies to employers, you may be creating constituencies; and, certainly, when the law begins spending hundreds of billions of dollars on health insurance subsidies to low and middle income Americans, you're going to be creating a huge constituency. ROVNER: And those are just a few of the law's benefits: things like starting to fill in the Medicare prescription drug donut hole for seniors . The NPR reporter then turned to one of the supporters of the legislation, Ron Pollack of the liberal organization Families USA. Unlike Cannon, who was identified as a libertarian, Rovner didn't give Pollack an ideological label: ROVNER: Ron Pollack of Families USA, who does support the law , says that as the public sees more of the law's benefits, support for it will grow. But he says it's about more than just buying off individual constituencies. It's about what the law actually does for people. RON POLLACK, FAMILIES USA: Those people who've got preexisting conditions, they don't want to be denied coverage by insurance companies. Those people who've got health conditions, they don't want to be charged an arm and a leg in discriminatory premiums. When people get sick, they don't want to lose the health coverage they've been paying for for many years. ROVNER: Pollack also says supporters of the law are still fighting to help the public understand the 2,000-page-plus measure. POLLACK: There are so many myths about this legislation, from death panels, government takeover, that this is adding to the deficit. None of those things are true. Pollack's denial that ObamacCare doesn't add to deficit doesn't square with an August 19, 2010 report by Ben Smith of Politico which points out that his own organization was among the “White House allies [that] are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to 'improve it.'” The bipartisan deficit commission final report actually pointed out that these earlier claims about “count on large phantom savings.” Unsurprisingly, the NPR correspondent didn't fact-check any of the “supporter's” claims. Rovner gave one last hint of her views on the year-old law at the end of her report: “…On the law's first birthday, it's still one big race, a competition between supporters who hope the health law will have many more birthdays to celebrate, and opponents, who'd like to blow out the candles permanently .” — Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here .
Continue reading …• EU bailout closer after José Sócrates loses crucial vote • Political limbo will put pressure on Portuguese bonds Portuguese prime minister José Sócrates has said he has submitted his resignation to the president after parliament rejected his minority Socialist government’s latest austerity measures. The loss of the vote “has taken away from the government all conditions to govern,” Sócrates said. It brings the country closer to needing a bailout. Sócrates is said he tendered his resignation to President Aníbal Cavaco Silva tonight, leaving the country in a political limbo that would place further pressure on Portugal’s record-level bond yields. Sócrates had said before the vote that he would resign if the measures to cut spending and increase taxes – designed to see off a bailout similar to those taken by Greece and Ireland – were rejected. The measures had aroused the fury of trade unions, and railway engineers walked off the job in the morning, causing widespread travel disruption. Political turmoil in Lisbon set nerves jangling in the eurozone just as it was revealed that EU leaders would postpone making a decision on a new €440bn bailout fund. A draft version of the deal to be agreed after two days of talks on Thursday and Friday delays a final decision until June, according to reports. An election in Portugal will take at least 55 days to organise. That raised additional fears that Sócrates – who would head a caretaker administration with limited powers until then – will be unable to head off a full collapse in market confidence. “My worry is the period of inaction before a new government takes over,” said Silvio Peruzzo, an economist at RBS in London. The main opposition centre-right Social Democratic Party, led by Pedro Passos Coelho, has been ahead in recent opinion polls. The Social Democrats also favour debt control. Portugal’s benchmark 10-year bond yield had risen to 7.77% before the debate on Wednesday, while five-year bonds hit a euro lifetime high of 8.2%. Economists see borrowing costs above 7% as unsustainable and say Portugal will have to resort to the rescue mechanism. Analysts suggested the failure to agree on measures would push Portugal closer to a bailout. “It seems more and more likely that Portugal will need some kind of support,” Charles Diebel, head of market strategy at Lloyds bank, said before the debate. News of the delay in putting together the €440bn eurozone rescue fund, coupled with concern about Portugal, could lead to another spell of instability on bond markets. “I fear that Monday could be Black Monday for markets,” one EU financial source told Reuters, emphasising that EU policymakers still had a long way to go to draft all the necessary documents. Portugal’s national debt stands at 83% of GDP. The budget deficit hit 9.3% of GDP in 2009, but was lowered to 7.3% in 2010 and Sócrates had wanted it to remain at 4.6% by the end of this year. Even before Wednesday’s events, Portugal’s economy had been expected to shrink by 1.3% this year. European debt crisis Europe Portugal European banks Giles Tremlett guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …George Osborne bowed to growing concern with instant 1p fuel duty cut for ‘Ford Focus’ voters and tax raids on banks George Osborne has bowed to growing concern over the biggest squeeze in living standards since the second world war with an instant cut in fuel duty, but had his claim to be delivering a budget for growth undermined by the ominous prospect of lower growth, rising unemployment and higher borrowing. While insisting the government was sticking to its austerity plan despite a gloomier outlook for the economy, the chancellor levied a surprise £2bn windfall tax on North Sea oil companies to finance a populist 1p a litre reduction in the price at the pumps as the unexpected finale of a reform package focused on reversing Britain’s economic decline. The chancellor said he was “putting fuel in the tank of the British economy” by liberalising Britain’s planning laws, scrapping red tape, simplifying the tax system and creating a Green Investment Bank to fund the expansion of environmental companies. But he was forced to admit that growth this year would be just 1.7% – lower than the 2.1% expected – while 200,000 fewer jobs would be created during this parliament. Figures from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility showed slower growth would result in £45bn extra borrowing between now and 2015. The downgrades were denounced by Labour as the first solid proof that the government’s medicine of an unprecedented deficit reduction programme was hurting, but not working. Ed Miliband, the opposition leader, accused Osborne of “Del Boy economics”, pointing out that he had put 3p on the price of fuel through the January increase in VAT. Osborne said the government’s determination to stick to its deficit reduction plan meant there was no room for an overall budget giveaway but announced an increase in the bank levy, a crackdown on tax avoidance and a tougher regime for North Sea oil and gas producers. They would fund a bigger than planned 2p cut in corporation tax, an increase in the number of apprentices and help for first-time buyers as well as scrapping the inflation-busting increase in fuel prices that Labour had pencilled in for next week. The Treasury claimed the package meant fuel would be 6p a litre cheaper from April – a saving of £3 on filling up a Ford Focus. If January’s VAT increase were taken into account, the reduced cost of filling the same car would be £1.50, officials said. Ending the fuel duty escalator, agreed late in the budget process along with the extra 1p cut in corporation tax, caused friction among members of the cabinet worried by its impact on the government’s climate change targets. The measures also attracted criticism from environmental groups. Signalling his keenness to scrap the 50% top rate of income tax, Osborne also pleased his Liberal Democrat coalition allies by saying the tax-free personal allowance would be raised by £630 to £8,105 from next April – a cut in tax bills of £48 a year on average in real terms. However, the chancellor also announced that from April 2012 direct tax allowances would be raised in line with the CPI, a move that would raise an extra £1bn for the exchequer by the end of this parliament. The chancellor said he was trying to create a “Britain carried aloft by the march of the maker”. He added: “This is how we will create jobs and support families. “Last year’s emergency budget was about rescuing the nation’s finances, and paying for the mistakes of the past,” he went on. “Today’s budget is about reforming the nation’s economy, so that we have enduring growth and jobs in the future. And it’s about doing what we can to help families with the cost of living and the high oil price.” Miliband countered: “One fact says it all and he couldn’t bring himself to say it: growth down last year, this year and next year. It’s the same old Tories. It’s hurting, but it isn’t working. Every time he comes to this house his growth forecast is downgraded.” He added: “It didn’t happen by chance, it happened by choice. His choice – and it’s the wrong choice – to go too far and too fast.” This was not “by chance” but because of “wrong” policies, Miliband said. Osborne admitted that higher inflation, leading to higher welfare payments and debt interest payments, did mean higher borrowing, but said the OBR regarded this as cyclical. It would melt away as growth picked up in future years, he said. The OBR said it still expected the government to meet its fiscal target a year earlier than the goal of 2015-16. This would leave the coalition government free to cut taxes or raise benefits in the runup to a 2015 general election. The chancellor unveiled a series of measures aimed at boosting enterprise – including a further cut to corporation tax, which will go down by two percentage points rather than one in April. He also promised to reduce capital gains tax for entrepreneurs selling shares. With spending cuts likely to hit hardest in the poorest regions of Britain, the chancellor more than doubled the number of planned enterprise zones – from 10 to 21. These areas will benefit from looser planning laws. Changes to the planning system will make it more difficult for local people to block “sustainable development” and easier for builders to convert commercial property into housing. His measures on tax avoidance and non-domiciles – they will have to pay a £50,000 charge if they have lived in the UK for 12 years – were met with disappointment, however. The former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott said the measures against non-domiciles were a flea bite and would leave them “laughing all the way to the Cayman Islands”. Businesses were pleased by the larger than expected cut in corporation tax. However, the TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber said it had been “a no-change budget”. “The chancellor has been forced to reveal the evidence that his policies aren’t working but has not had the courage to change them,” he said. Budget George Osborne Budget 2011 Economic policy Larry Elliott Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …This is the one-year anniversary of the health care reform bill that was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, into becoming the law of the land. On that day, after a century of bruising and ugly battles to get some kind of comprehensive health care package done, the final ugly battle got completed — successfully this time. There is a lot this bill didn’t get done, but one year ago today the United States finally enacted a law that established health care coverage of the entire population as a goal and value of our government. We stated as a country that it should be the right of every American to have health insurance. We declared that insurance companies should be subject to certain humane and commonsense restrictions when it came to denying people coverage — like an insurer had to keep covering people even if they got sick, and they had to keep covering people even when it cost a lot of money. We came squarely down on the side of seniors getting prescription drugs, young people being able to stay on their parents’ plans for a while, more of the working poor being covered by the government, and everyone getting preventive care. There were flaws aplenty. We provided no competition or check on the power of private insurance through a public plan, which will drive costs up. We chose not to lower drug prices for the federal government by having Medicare bargain with drug companies, which also will drive costs up. We totally screwed up the abortion coverage issue. These and other things big and small need to be fixed, and soon. But here’s the thing, the reason that every progressive member of Congress voted for this: it gives us a platform to stand on. It’s a rickety platform because of those construction flaws, and there are plenty of folks trying hard to burn it down. But it is a platform that can be repaired and expanded and strengthened if we keep working on it, the same way Social Security was, the same way the minimum wage and Medicare and Medicaid have been. One of the earliest issue battles I remember following, back when I was just getting interested in politics, was the health care debate of the early ’70s. It didn’t happen then, or a few years later in the Carter years when Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter couldn’t come to terms on the issue. I was thrilled to be working on comprehensive reform in the Clinton White House in the early ’90s, but that effort went down in flames. I have read about Teddy Roosevelt first proposing comprehensive reform in the 1910s and it going nowhere; about FDR passing Social Security, bank regulation, labor law reform and all the rest, but not having the strength to get health care done; about Truman pushing for it in the ’40s and it going nowhere fast; and about LBJ passing civil rights legislation, the war on poverty, Medicare, and Medicaid, but not having the guts to pass a more comprehensive health care bill. I knew all that history, and knew that every failure made the next time around that much tougher. Getting this platform to stand on was never going to be the end of this battle, just the first step forward, but if you get blown up on your first step, the next dozen- or hundred- never happen. So now we have a platform. First we have to defend it from the mob with torches. These Republicans who don’t want there to be “government run” health care are happy to take it for themselves when they are members of Congress, or use Medicare when they get older, or use VA care if they are veterans, or take state government health insurance when they are state Senators, or county government health care when they are county commissioners. But heaven forbid if some working class guy gets sick and dropped from his coverage because his kid develops diabetes, because that would mean government “runs” our health care. Now clearly, the messy way this thing got passed and the bad messaging from the White House didn’t help us in terms of public opinion, but this issue is like every other bit of social progress in the last couple hundred years: right wingers try to scare the hell out of everyone, have some initial success, but once the bill becomes law people start to get used to what they like about it. That is the phase we are going through now, as polling shows the repeal message has less and less support over time. Once we successfully defend the idea of health security for everyone, we have to begin the improvement process, because there are some very important things we need to fix. I am optimistic that we can do that in the coming years, as people continue to get hurt by insurers, and continue to rely more on the protections and security the new health care has for them. Nothing in the course of history is certain. This law might get picked apart, worsened, even repealed by right-wing Republicans if they gain more wins in the next election or two. But my guess is that when we look back on this at the 10-year anniversary of this bill, we will see a law that is rapidly becoming as politically well-established as Social Security, and is being improved over the years just the way Social Security has been. We have a platform to build on; we just need to keep building.
Continue reading …Arizona’s Senate passed a bill that, if it becomes law, would make it a crime to abort based on the sex or race of a fetus. House Bill 2443 would make it a felony for a doctor to perform such an abortion; it was already passed by the House, but…
Continue reading …During her 79 years, Elizabeth Taylor appeared in more than 50 films, won two Oscars, and was married eight times to seven men. She battled substance abuse, poor health, and overeating, and often found herself in the tabloid pages. But, the AP notes, she’ll be remembered just as much for…
Continue reading …