AND THE THIRD ANGEL FOLLOWED THEM, SAYING WITH A LOUD VOICE, IF ANY MAN WORSHIP THE BEAST AND HIS IMAGE, AND RECEIVE HIS MARK IN HIS FOREHEAD, OR IN HIS HAND. *** REVELATION 14:9
Friday, January 03, 2014
Got Insurance Ads Using Sex & Alcohol To Sell Obamacare

JmanPrepper Redux
Published on Nov 16, 2013
Check out the ad website and think for yourselves.
http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/
Here's a small sample from a Huffington Post story. (link below)
The people that brought you the Obamacare keg-stand "brosurance" campaign are back with a new set of eyebrow-raising ads.
The ads, which all live on the DoYouGotInsurance.com website, are a collaboration between Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education, and reference the famous "Got Milk?" ads.
In one ad -- called "Let's Get Physical" -- characters named "Susie" and "Nate" are described as "hot to trot." Susie gives a thumbs up while holding a back of birth control pills.
"OMG, he's hot!" the ad reads. "Let's hope he's as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance."
New Obamacare Ads Use Party Girls, Bloody Kids And Keg-Stands (Again) To Sell Insurance
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11...
Published on Nov 16, 2013
Check out the ad website and think for yourselves.
http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/
Here's a small sample from a Huffington Post story. (link below)
The people that brought you the Obamacare keg-stand "brosurance" campaign are back with a new set of eyebrow-raising ads.
The ads, which all live on the DoYouGotInsurance.com website, are a collaboration between Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education, and reference the famous "Got Milk?" ads.
In one ad -- called "Let's Get Physical" -- characters named "Susie" and "Nate" are described as "hot to trot." Susie gives a thumbs up while holding a back of birth control pills.
"OMG, he's hot!" the ad reads. "Let's hope he's as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance."
New Obamacare Ads Use Party Girls, Bloody Kids And Keg-Stands (Again) To Sell Insurance
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11...
.
.
Fiat to buy full control of Chrysler
By Mark M. Meinero @MMMCNNMoney January 2, 2014: 7:02 AM ET
Fiat has agreed to purchase remaining shares in Chrysler for $3.65 billion.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
U.S. automaker Chrysler will become fully owned by Italy's Fiat under terms of an agreement announced Wednesday that also involves the United Auto Workers union.
The agreement comes more than 4-1/2 years after the Obama administration brought Fiat in to keep Chrysler in business as part of a packaged bankruptcy proceeding.
In a statement, Fiat said it has agreed to pay $3.65 billion for the 41.46% of Chrysler it doesn't already own from the UAW's medical benefits trust for retirees.
Fiat shares gained nearly 13% in Milan early Thursday to trade at €6.70, their highest level since July 2011.
In addition to the deal, Chrysler will contribute $700 million to the benefits trust over a 4-year period. For its part, the UAW has agreed to support the automaker's plans to roll out vehicles and will drop a Delaware court proceeding over options exercised by Fiat in the acquisition of Chrysler.
Related: 2013: The year in cars
"The unified ownership structure will now allow us to fully execute our vision of creating a global automaker that is truly unique in terms of mix of experience, perspective and know-how, a solid and open organization that will ensure all employees a challenging and rewarding environment," said Sergio Marchionne, CEO of both Fiat and Chrysler.
The full takeover of Chrysler by Fiat means it will not have to go ahead with plans for aninitial public offering of Chrysler stock, which had been set to take place in the first three months of 2014.
.
The New Face of Diplomacy
Dennis Rodman leaves North Korea without meeting Kim Jong Un
By Jaime A. FlorCruz and CY Xu, CNN
December 23, 2013 -- Updated 2132 GMT (0532 HKT)
Dennis Rodman's trips to North Korea
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Online betting company Paddy Power ends connection to Rodman
Rodman leaves North Korea after his third trip without meeting leader Kim Jong Un
He helped prepare North Korean basketball players for an upcoming exhibition
Rodman: "I will be coming back in another week"
Beijing (CNN) -- Flamboyant former NBA star Dennis Rodman left North Korea without meeting the country's leader Kim Jong Un but praised the local basketball players he trained there.
"They are awesome," Rodman told CNN while in transit at Beijing Capital International Airport on Monday.
Rodman started his third visit to North Korea last week, spending four days in the isolated nation to assist setting up an exhibition game featuring North Korean players and a dozen NBA veteran players whose identities have not yet been announced. The friendly game is planned for Kim Jong Un's birthday on January 8.
Rodman's latest round of "basketball diplomacy" came less than a week after North Korea announced the dramatic purge and execution of Kim's uncle, Jang Song Thaek, North Korea's No. 2 leader.
Rodman: North Korea trip was 'awesome'
Rodman: Kim Jong-un is my friend
Rodman in North Korea to "have some fun"
Gambling site backing Rodman trip
Jang's reported execution has caused confusion and uncertainty about what's going on in North Korea and worsened its tense relations with South Korea and the United States.
Controversial Cuban Vacation of Jay-Z and Beyonce Proven Legal
By EMILY STANTON
June 18, 2013
Beyonce and Jay-Z tour Old Havana with a bodyguard and tour guide.
Celebrities really are just like us, even Jay-Z and Beyonce. Before taking their controversial vacation to Cuba in January, the couple had to file the same paperwork as the rest of us would.
When the destination for their wedding anniversary was discovered, many – including Florida Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, both Republicans, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat – questioned the legality of the trip. Travel restrictions to Cuba have been in place since the 1960s because of the country's communist government.
[OPINION: Jay-Z and Beyonce Should Not Have Traveled to Cuba]
"Cuba's tourism industry is wholly state-controlled, therefore, U.S. dollars spent on Cuban tourism directly fund the machinery of oppression that brutally represses the Cuban people," Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart wrote in a letter to the U.S. Treasury Department in April.
Read more
Richard Haass talks: Blame game gets under way in earnest
/>Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan
BY NOEL MCADAM – 03 JANUARY 2014
Ulster Unionists and Alliance have clashed as the political momentum of the Haass talks process begins to show signs of flagging.
ALSO IN THIS SECTION
Unionists urged to declare stance
'Sham marriage' groom met French bride at Belfast airport, court hears
Men accused of Boxing Night car-stealing spree in Derry refused bail
UK applicants for universities drop
The fallout from the failure to reach agreement over flags, parading and the past brought a resumption of the blame game between the parties.
The further unravelling since First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinnessmade public the final text produced by Dr Haass came as parties began their post-talks internal consultations.
The SDLP last night confirmed its support for the Haass proposals and setting up a working group. Party leader Alasdair McDonnell said: "The SDLP believe that the opportunity of this moment needs to be grasped.
"I will write to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to urge that a five party working group is immediately convened. Its purpose is not a talking shop and to again go around the houses. Its purpose to is work up the implementation of the Haass O'Sullivan proposals, plan the legislation that is necessary and bring resolution to issues that remain."
UUP boss Mike Nesbitt said the major problem with getting the process back on track was the Alliance Party "cherry-picking" the final document. Mr Nesbitt, who refused to reveal whether he would recommend acceptance of the text when he meets his party executive on Monday, added: "Cherry-picking is a Pandora's box, once opened, very difficult to contain."
He also called on Mr Robinson and Mr McGuinness to take the next steps.
But Alliance negotiator Chris Lyttle said unionist parties had refused to even consider proposals on the regulation of flags on lampposts. And the East Belfast MLA said his party had real concerns about the attitude and motivation of other parties on the flags issue and the consequences for failing to show leadership.
Sinn Fein, meanwhile, urged the Stormont parties not to fudge their responses to the proposals and warned they would have problems in selling aspects of the document to its support base.
Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams said: "(We) would like to have seen some aspects of the proposed agreement strengthened and improved further. More work is required on parity of esteem, equality and respect for all cultures and identities. However, agreement on everything was not possible."
BY NOEL MCADAM – 03 JANUARY 2014
Ulster Unionists and Alliance have clashed as the political momentum of the Haass talks process begins to show signs of flagging.
ALSO IN THIS SECTION
Unionists urged to declare stance
'Sham marriage' groom met French bride at Belfast airport, court hears
Men accused of Boxing Night car-stealing spree in Derry refused bail
UK applicants for universities drop
The fallout from the failure to reach agreement over flags, parading and the past brought a resumption of the blame game between the parties.
The further unravelling since First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinnessmade public the final text produced by Dr Haass came as parties began their post-talks internal consultations.
The SDLP last night confirmed its support for the Haass proposals and setting up a working group. Party leader Alasdair McDonnell said: "The SDLP believe that the opportunity of this moment needs to be grasped.
"I will write to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to urge that a five party working group is immediately convened. Its purpose is not a talking shop and to again go around the houses. Its purpose to is work up the implementation of the Haass O'Sullivan proposals, plan the legislation that is necessary and bring resolution to issues that remain."
UUP boss Mike Nesbitt said the major problem with getting the process back on track was the Alliance Party "cherry-picking" the final document. Mr Nesbitt, who refused to reveal whether he would recommend acceptance of the text when he meets his party executive on Monday, added: "Cherry-picking is a Pandora's box, once opened, very difficult to contain."
He also called on Mr Robinson and Mr McGuinness to take the next steps.
But Alliance negotiator Chris Lyttle said unionist parties had refused to even consider proposals on the regulation of flags on lampposts. And the East Belfast MLA said his party had real concerns about the attitude and motivation of other parties on the flags issue and the consequences for failing to show leadership.
Sinn Fein, meanwhile, urged the Stormont parties not to fudge their responses to the proposals and warned they would have problems in selling aspects of the document to its support base.
Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams said: "(We) would like to have seen some aspects of the proposed agreement strengthened and improved further. More work is required on parity of esteem, equality and respect for all cultures and identities. However, agreement on everything was not possible."
.
President Obama on income inequality (transcript)
President Barack Obama stands on the second green at Kaneohe Klipper Golf Course on Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, Thursday, Jan. 2, 2014. The first family is in Hawaii for their annual holiday vacation.
Mike Groll/AP
Light snow fell in Albany, N.Y., early Thursday.
~)0(~
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 04, 2013
Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility
THEARC
Washington, D.C.
11:31 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much. Please, please have a seat. Thank you so much. Well, thank you, Neera, for the wonderful introduction and sharing a story that resonated with me. There were a lot of parallels in my life and probably resonated with some of you.
Over the past 10 years, the Center for American Progress has done incredible work to shape the debate over expanding opportunity for all Americans. And I could not be more grateful to CAP not only for giving me a lot of good policy ideas, but also giving me a lot of staff. (Laughter.) My friend, John Podesta, ran my transition; my Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, did a stint at CAP. So you guys are obviously doing a good job training folks.
I also want to thank all the members of Congress and my administration who are here today for the wonderful work that they do. I want to thank Mayor Gray and everyone here at THEARC for having me. This center, which I’ve been to quite a bit, have had a chance to see some of the great work that’s done here. And all the nonprofits that call THEARC home offer access to everything from education, to health care, to a safe shelter from the streets, which means that you’re harnessing the power of community to expand opportunity for folks here in D.C. And your work reflects a tradition that runs through our history -- a belief that we’re greater together than we are on our own. And that’s what I’ve come here to talk about today.
Over the last two months, Washington has been dominated by some pretty contentious debates -- I think that’s fair to say. And between a reckless shutdown by congressional Republicans in an effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and admittedly poor execution on my administration’s part in implementing the latest stage of the new law, nobody has acquitted themselves very well these past few months. So it’s not surprising that the American people’s frustrations with Washington are at an all-time high.
But we know that people’s frustrations run deeper than these most recent political battles. Their frustration is rooted in their own daily battles -- to make ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement. It’s rooted in the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them. And it’s rooted in the fear that their kids won’t be better off than they were. They may not follow the constant back-and-forth in Washington or all the policy details, but they experience in a very personal way the relentless, decades-long trend that I want to spend some time talking about today. And that is a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain -- that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead.
I believe this is the defining challenge of our time: Making sure our economy works for every working American. It’s why I ran for President. It was at the center of last year’s campaign. It drives everything I do in this office. And I know I’ve raised this issue before, and some will ask why I raise the issue again right now. I do it because the outcomes of the debates we’re having right now -- whether it’s health care, or the budget, or reforming our housing and financial systems -- all these things will have real, practical implications for every American. And I am convinced that the decisions we make on these issues over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in an America where opportunity is real.
Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity -- the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. And with every chapter we’ve added to that story, we’ve worked hard to put those words into practice.
It was Abraham Lincoln, a self-described “poor man’s son,” who started a system of land grant colleges all over this country so that any poor man’s son could go learn something new.
When farms gave way to factories, a rich man’s son named Teddy Roosevelt fought for an eight-hour workday, protections for workers, and busted monopolies that kept prices high and wages low.
When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security, and insurance for the unemployed, and a minimum wage.
When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid.
Together, we forged a New Deal, declared a War on Poverty in a great society. We built a ladder of opportunity to climb, and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far, and we could bounce back. And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known. And for the three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity.
Now, we can’t look at the past through rose-colored glasses. The economy didn’t always work for everyone. Racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty -- or out of opportunity. Women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid professions. And it was only through painstaking struggle that more women, and minorities, and Americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy.
Nevertheless, during the post-World War II years, the economic ground felt stable and secure for most Americans, and the future looked brighter than the past. And for some, that meant following in your old man’s footsteps at the local plant, and you knew that a blue-collar job would let you buy a home, and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension. For others, it meant going to college -- in some cases, maybe the first in your family to go to college. And it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt, and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market.
Now, it’s true that those at the top, even in those years, claimed a much larger share of income than the rest: The top 10 percent consistently took home about one-third of our national income. But that kind of inequality took place in a dynamic market economy where everyone’s wages and incomes were growing. And because of upward mobility, the guy on the factory floor could picture his kid running the company some day.
But starting in the late ‘70s, this social compact began to unravel. Technology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. A more competitive world lets companies ship jobs anywhere. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits.
As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce. We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market. But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.
And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure. I’ll just give you a few statistics. Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent. Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few.
The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income -- it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.
So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy. Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. “How can it be,” he wrote, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”
But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we've often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason -- because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”
The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies -- countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.
The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.
So let me repeat: The combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe. And it is not simply a moral claim that I’m making here. There are practical consequences to rising inequality and reduced mobility.
For one thing, these trends are bad for our economy. One study finds that growth is more fragile and recessions are more frequent in countries with greater inequality. And that makes sense. When families have less to spend, that means businesses have fewer customers, and households rack up greater mortgage and credit card debt; meanwhile, concentrated wealth at the top is less likely to result in the kind of broadly based consumer spending that drives our economy, and together with lax regulation, may contribute to risky speculative bubbles.
And rising inequality and declining mobility are also bad for our families and social cohesion -- not just because we tend to trust our institutions less, but studies show we actually tend to trust each other less when there’s greater inequality. And greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations. That means it’s not just temporary; the effects last. It creates a vicious cycle. For example, by the time she turns three years old, a child born into a low-income home hears 30 million fewer words than a child from a well-off family, which means by the time she starts school she’s already behind, and that deficit can compound itself over time.
And finally, rising inequality and declining mobility are bad for our democracy. Ordinary folks can’t write massive campaign checks or hire high-priced lobbyists and lawyers to secure policies that tilt the playing field in their favor at everyone else’s expense. And so people get the bad taste that the system is rigged, and that increases cynicism and polarization, and it decreases the political participation that is a requisite part of our system of self-government.
But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we've often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason -- because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”
The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies -- countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.
The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.
So let me repeat: The combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe. And it is not simply a moral claim that I’m making here. There are practical consequences to rising inequality and reduced mobility.
For one thing, these trends are bad for our economy. One study finds that growth is more fragile and recessions are more frequent in countries with greater inequality. And that makes sense. When families have less to spend, that means businesses have fewer customers, and households rack up greater mortgage and credit card debt; meanwhile, concentrated wealth at the top is less likely to result in the kind of broadly based consumer spending that drives our economy, and together with lax regulation, may contribute to risky speculative bubbles.
And rising inequality and declining mobility are also bad for our families and social cohesion -- not just because we tend to trust our institutions less, but studies show we actually tend to trust each other less when there’s greater inequality. And greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations. That means it’s not just temporary; the effects last. It creates a vicious cycle. For example, by the time she turns three years old, a child born into a low-income home hears 30 million fewer words than a child from a well-off family, which means by the time she starts school she’s already behind, and that deficit can compound itself over time.
And finally, rising inequality and declining mobility are bad for our democracy. Ordinary folks can’t write massive campaign checks or hire high-priced lobbyists and lawyers to secure policies that tilt the playing field in their favor at everyone else’s expense. And so people get the bad taste that the system is rigged, and that increases cynicism and polarization, and it decreases the political participation that is a requisite part of our system of self-government.
So this is an issue that we have to tackle head on. And if, in fact, the majority of Americans agree that our number-one priority is to restore opportunity and broad-based growth for all Americans, the question is why has Washington consistently failed to act? And I think a big reason is the myths that have developed around the issue of inequality.
First, there is the myth that this is a problem restricted to a small share of predominantly minority poor -- that this isn’t a broad-based problem, this is a black problem or a Hispanic problem or a Native American problem. Now, it’s true that the painful legacy of discrimination means that African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity -- higher unemployment, higher poverty rates. It’s also true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. So we’re going to need strong application of antidiscrimination laws. We’re going to need immigration reform that grows the economy and takes people out of the shadows. We’re going to need targeted initiatives to close those gaps.
First, there is the myth that this is a problem restricted to a small share of predominantly minority poor -- that this isn’t a broad-based problem, this is a black problem or a Hispanic problem or a Native American problem. Now, it’s true that the painful legacy of discrimination means that African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity -- higher unemployment, higher poverty rates. It’s also true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. So we’re going to need strong application of antidiscrimination laws. We’re going to need immigration reform that grows the economy and takes people out of the shadows. We’re going to need targeted initiatives to close those gaps.
(Applause.)
But here’s an important point. The decades-long shifts in the economy have hurt all groups: poor and middle class; inner city and rural folks; men and women; and Americans of all races. And as a consequence, some of the social patterns that contribute to declining mobility that were once attributed to the urban poor -- that’s a particular problem for the inner city: single-parent households or drug abuse -- it turns out now we’re seeing that pop up everywhere.
A new study shows that disparities in education, mental health, obesity, absent fathers, isolation from church, isolation from community groups -- these gaps are now as much about growing up rich or poor as they are about anything else. The gap in test scores between poor kids and wealthy kids is now nearly twice what it is between white kids and black kids. Kids with working-class parents are 10 times likelier than kids with middle- or upper-class parents to go through a time when their parents have no income. So the fact is this: The opportunity gap in America is now as much about class as it is about race, and that gap is growing.
So if we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts. (Applause.)
Second, we need to dispel the myth that the goals of growing the economy and reducing inequality are necessarily in conflict, when they should actually work in concert. We know from our history that our economy grows best from the middle out, when growth is more widely shared. And we know that beyond a certain level of inequality, growth actually slows altogether.
Third, we need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality. It’s true that government cannot prevent all the downsides of the technological change and global competition that are out there right now, and some of those forces are also some of the things that are helping us grow. And it’s also true that some programs in the past, like welfare before it was reformed, were sometimes poorly designed, created disincentives to work.
But we’ve also seen how government action time and again can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class. Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining, and a minimum wage -- these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans. (Applause.) Likewise, when previous generations declared that every citizen of this country deserved a basic measure of security -- a floor through which they could not fall -- we helped millions of Americans live in dignity, and gave millions more the confidence to aspire to something better, by taking a risk on a great idea.
Without Social Security, nearly half of seniors would be living in poverty -- half. Today, fewer than 1 in 10 do. Before Medicare, only half of all seniors had some form of health insurance. Today, virtually all do. And because we’ve strengthened that safety net, and expanded pro-work and pro-family tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, a recent study found that the poverty rate has fallen by 40 percent since the 1960s. And these endeavors didn’t just make us a better country; they reaffirmed that we are a great country.
So we can make a difference on this. In fact, that’s our generation’s task -- to rebuild America’s economic and civic foundation to continue the expansion of opportunity for this generation and the next generation. (Applause.) And like Neera, I take this personally. I’m only here because this country educated my grandfather on the GI Bill. When my father left and my mom hit hard times trying to raise my sister and me while she was going to school, this country helped make sure we didn’t go hungry. When Michelle, the daughter of a shift worker at a water plant and a secretary, wanted to go to college, just like me, this country helped us afford it until we could pay it back.
So what drives me as a grandson, a son, a father -- as an American -- is to make sure that every striving, hardworking, optimistic kid in America has the same incredible chance that this country gave me. (Applause.) It has been the driving force between everything we’ve done these past five years. And over the course of the next year, and for the rest of my presidency, that’s where you should expect my administration to focus all our efforts. (Applause.)
Now, you'll be pleased to know this is not a State of the Union Address. (Laughter.) And many of the ideas that can make the biggest difference in expanding opportunity I’ve presented before. But let me offer a few key principles, just a roadmap that I believe should guide us in both our legislative agenda and our administrative efforts.
To begin with, we have to continue to relentlessly push a growth agenda. It may be true that in today’s economy, growth alone does not guarantee higher wages and incomes. We've seen that. But what's also true is we can’t tackle inequality if the economic pie is shrinking or stagnant. The fact is if you’re a progressive and you want to help the middle class and the working poor, you’ve still got to be concerned about competitiveness and productivity and business confidence that spurs private sector investment.
And that’s why from day one we’ve worked to get the economy growing and help our businesses hire. And thanks to their resilience and innovation, they’ve created nearly 8 million new jobs over the past 44 months. And now we’ve got to grow the economy even faster. And we've got to keep working to make America a magnet for good, middle-class jobs to replace the ones that we’ve lost in recent decades -- jobs in manufacturing and energy and infrastructure and technology.
And that means simplifying our corporate tax code in a way that closes wasteful loopholes and ends incentives to ship jobs overseas. (Applause.) And by broadening the base, we can actually lower rates to encourage more companies to hire here and use some of the money we save to create good jobs rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports, and all the infrastructure our businesses need.
It means a trade agenda that grows exports and works for the middle class. It means streamlining regulations that are outdated or unnecessary or too costly. And it means coming together around a responsible budget -- one that grows our economy faster right now and shrinks our long-term deficits, one that unwinds the harmful sequester cuts that haven't made a lot of sense -- (applause) -- and then frees up resources to invest in things like the scientific research that's always unleashed new innovation and new industries.
When it comes to our budget, we should not be stuck in a stale debate from two years ago or three years ago. A relentlessly growing deficit of opportunity is a bigger threat to our future than our rapidly shrinking fiscal deficit. (Applause.)
So that’s step one towards restoring mobility: making sure our economy is growing faster. Step two is making sure we empower more Americans with the skills and education they need to compete in a highly competitive global economy.
We know that education is the most important predictor of income today, so we launched a Race to the Top in our schools. We’re supporting states that have raised standards for teaching and learning. We’re pushing for redesigned high schools that graduate more kids with the technical training and apprenticeships, and in-demand, high-tech skills that can lead directly to a good job and a middle-class life.
We know it’s harder to find a job today without some higher education, so we’ve helped more students go to college with grants and loans that go farther than before. We’ve made it more practical to repay those loans. And today, more students are graduating from college than ever before. We’re also pursuing an aggressive strategy to promote innovation that reins in tuition costs. We’ve got lower costs so that young people are not burdened by enormous debt when they make the right decision to get higher education. And next week, Michelle and I will bring together college presidents and non-profits to lead a campaign to help more low-income students attend and succeed in college. (Applause.)
But while higher education may be the surest path to the middle class, it’s not the only one. So we should offer our people the best technical education in the world. That’s why we’ve worked to connect local businesses with community colleges, so that workers young and old can earn the new skills that earn them more money.
And I’ve also embraced an idea that I know all of you at the Center for American Progress have championed -- and, by the way, Republican governors in a couple of states have championed -- and that’s making high-quality preschool available to every child in America. (Applause.) We know that kids in these programs grow up likelier to get more education, earn higher wages, form more stable families of their own. It starts a virtuous cycle, not a vicious one. And we should invest in that. We should give all of our children that chance.
And as we empower our young people for future success, the third part of this middle-class economics is empowering our workers. It’s time to ensure our collective bargaining laws function as they’re supposed to -- (applause) -- so unions have a level playing field to organize for a better deal for workers and better wages for the middle class. It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women will have more tools to fight pay discrimination. (Applause.) It’s time to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act so workers can’t be fired for who they are or who they love. (Applause.)
And even though we’re bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, we’re creating more good-paying jobs in education and health care and business services; we know that we’re going to have a greater and greater portion of our people in the service sector. And we know that there are airport workers, and fast-food workers, and nurse assistants, and retail salespeople who work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office. (Applause.)
This shouldn’t be an ideological question. It was Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, who once said, “They who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.” And for those of you who don’t speak old-English -- (laughter) -- let me translate. It means if you work hard, you should make a decent living. (Applause.) If you work hard, you should be able to support a family.
Now, we all know the arguments that have been used against a higher minimum wage. Some say it actually hurts low-wage workers -- businesses will be less likely to hire them. But there’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs, and research shows it raises incomes for low-wage workers and boosts short-term economic growth. (Applause.)
Others argue that if we raise the minimum wage, companies will just pass those costs on to consumers. But a growing chorus of businesses, small and large, argue differently. And already, there are extraordinary companies in America that provide decent wages, salaries, and benefits, and training for their workers, and deliver a great product to consumers.
SAS in North Carolina offers childcare and sick leave. REI, a company my Secretary of the Interior used to run, offers retirement plans and strives to cultivate a good work balance. There are companies out there that do right by their workers. They recognize that paying a decent wage actually helps their bottom line, reduces turnover. It means workers have more money to spend, to save, maybe eventually start a business of their own.
A broad majority of Americans agree we should raise the minimum wage. That’s why, last month, voters in New Jersey decided to become the 20th state to raise theirs even higher. That’s why, yesterday, the D.C. Council voted to do it, too. I agree with those voters. (Applause.) I agree with those voters, and I’m going to keep pushing until we get a higher minimum wage for hard-working Americans across the entire country. It will be good for our economy. It will be good for our families. (Applause.)
Number four, as I alluded to earlier, we still need targeted programs for the communities and workers that have been hit hardest by economic change and the Great Recession. These communities are no longer limited to the inner city. They’re found in neighborhoods hammered by the housing crisis, manufacturing towns hit hard by years of plants packing up, landlocked rural areas where young folks oftentimes feel like they've got to leave just to find a job. There are communities that just aren’t generating enough jobs anymore.
So we’ve put forward new plans to help these communities and their residents, because we’ve watched cities like Pittsburgh or my hometown of Chicago revamp themselves. And if we give more cities the tools to do it -- not handouts, but a hand up -- cities like Detroit can do it, too. So in a few weeks, we’ll announce the first of these Promise Zones, urban and rural communities where we’re going to support local efforts focused on a national goal -- and that is a child’s course in life should not be determined by the zip code he’s born in, but by the strength of his work ethic and the scope of his dreams. (Applause.)
And we're also going to have to do more for the long-term unemployed. For people who have been out of work for more than six months, often through no fault of their own, life is a catch-22. Companies won’t give their résumé an honest look because they’ve been laid off so long -- but they’ve been laid off so long because companies won’t give their résumé an honest look. (Laughter.) And that’s why earlier this year, I challenged CEOs from some of America’s best companies to give these Americans a fair shot. And next month, many of them will join us at the White House for an announcement about this.
Fifth, we've got to revamp retirement to protect Americans in their golden years, to make sure another housing collapse doesn’t steal the savings in their homes. We've also got to strengthen our safety net for a new age, so it doesn’t just protect people who hit a run of bad luck from falling into poverty, but also propels them back out of poverty.
Today, nearly half of full-time workers and 80 percent of part-time workers don’t have a pension or retirement account at their job. About half of all households don’t have any retirement savings. So we’re going to have to do more to encourage private savings and shore up the promise of Social Security for future generations. And remember, these are promises we make to one another. We don’t do it to replace the free market, but we do it to reduce risk in our society by giving people the ability to take a chance and catch them if they fall. One study shows that more than half of Americans will experience poverty at some point during their adult lives. Think about that. This is not an isolated situation. More than half of Americans at some point in their lives will experience poverty.
That’s why we have nutrition assistance or the program known as SNAP, because it makes a difference for a mother who’s working, but is just having a hard time putting food on the table for her kids. That’s why we have unemployment insurance, because it makes a difference for a father who lost his job and is out there looking for a new one that he can keep a roof over his kids' heads. By the way, Christmastime is no time for Congress to tell more than 1 million of these Americans that they have lost their unemployment insurance, which is what will happen if Congress does not act before they leave on their holiday vacation. (Applause.)
The point is these programs are not typically hammocks for people to just lie back and relax. These programs are almost always temporary means for hardworking people to stay afloat while they try to find a new job or go into school to retrain themselves for the jobs that are out there, or sometimes just to cope with a bout of bad luck. Progressives should be open to reforms that actually strengthen these programs and make them more responsive to a 21st century economy. For example, we should be willing to look at fresh ideas to revamp unemployment and disability programs to encourage faster and higher rates of re-employment without cutting benefits. We shouldn't weaken fundamental protections built over generations, because given the constant churn in today’s economy and the disabilities that many of our friends and neighbors live with, they're needed more than ever. We should strengthen them and adapt them to new circumstances so they work even better.
But understand that these programs of social insurance benefit all of us, because we don't know when we might have a run of bad luck. (Applause.) We don't know when we might lose a job. Of course, for decades, there was one yawning gap in the safety net that did more than anything else to expose working families to the insecurities of today’s economy -- namely, our broken health care system.
That’s why we fought for the Affordable Care Act -- (applause) -- because 14,000 Americans lost their health insurance every single day, and even more died each year because they didn’t have health insurance at all. We did it because millions of families who thought they had coverage were driven into bankruptcy by out-of-pocket costs that they didn't realize would be there. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens couldn’t get any coverage at all. And Dr. King once said, "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”
Well, not anymore. (Applause.) Because in the three years since we passed this law, the share of Americans with insurance is up, the growth of health care costs are down to their slowest rate in 50 years. More people have insurance, and more have new benefits and protections -- 100 million Americans who have gained the right for free preventive care like mammograms and contraception; the more than 7 million Americans who have saved an average of $1,200 on their prescription medicine; every American who won’t go broke when they get sick because their insurance can’t limit their care anymore.
More people without insurance have gained insurance -- more than 3 million young Americans who have been able to stay on their parents’ plan, the more than half a million Americans and counting who are poised to get covered starting on January 1st, some for the very first time.
And it is these numbers -- not the ones in any poll -- that will ultimately determine the fate of this law. (Applause.) It's the measurable outcomes in reduced bankruptcies and reduced hours that have been lost because somebody couldn't make it to work, and healthier kids with better performance in schools, and young entrepreneurs who have the freedom to go out there and try a new idea -- those are the things that will ultimately reduce a major source of inequality and help ensure more Americans get the start that they need to succeed in the future.
I have acknowledged more than once that we didn’t roll out parts of this law as well as we should have. But the law is already working in major ways that benefit millions of Americans right now, even as we’ve begun to slow the rise in health care costs, which is good for family budgets, good for federal and state budgets, and good for the budgets of businesses small and large. So this law is going to work. And for the sake of our economic security, it needs to work. (Applause.)
And as people in states as different as California and Kentucky sign up every single day for health insurance, signing up in droves, they’re proving they want that economic security. If the Senate Republican leader still thinks he is going to be able to repeal this someday, he might want to check with the more than 60,000 people in his home state who are already set to finally have coverage that frees them from the fear of financial ruin, and lets them afford to take their kids to see a doctor. (Applause.)
So let me end by addressing the elephant in the room here, which is the seeming inability to get anything done in Washington these days. I realize we are not going to resolve all of our political debates over the best ways to reduce inequality and increase upward mobility this year, or next year, or in the next five years. But it is important that we have a serious debate about these issues. For the longer that current trends are allowed to continue, the more it will feed the cynicism and fear that many Americans are feeling right now -- that they’ll never be able to repay the debt they took on to go to college, they’ll never be able to save enough to retire, they’ll never see their own children land a good job that supports a family.
And that’s why, even as I will keep on offering my own ideas for expanding opportunity, I’ll also keep challenging and welcoming those who oppose my ideas to offer their own. If Republicans have concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor, let’s hear them. I want to know what they are. If you don’t think we should raise the minimum wage, let’s hear your idea to increase people’s earnings. If you don’t think every child should have access to preschool, tell us what you’d do differently to give them a better shot.
If you still don’t like Obamacare -- and I know you don’t -- (laughter) -- even though it’s built on market-based ideas of choice and competition in the private sector, then you should explain how, exactly, you’d cut costs, and cover more people, and make insurance more secure. You owe it to the American people to tell us what you are for, not just what you’re against. (Applause.) That way we can have a vigorous and meaningful debate. That’s what the American people deserve. That’s what the times demand. It’s not enough anymore to just say we should just get our government out of the way and let the unfettered market take care of it -- for our experience tells us that’s just not true. (Applause.)
Look, I’ve never believed that government can solve every problem or should -- and neither do you. We know that ultimately our strength is grounded in our people -- individuals out there, striving, working, making things happen. It depends on community, a rich and generous sense of community -- that’s at the core of what happens at THEARC here every day. You understand that turning back rising inequality and expanding opportunity requires parents taking responsibility for their kids, kids taking responsibility to work hard. It requires religious leaders who mobilize their congregations to rebuild neighborhoods block by block, requires civic organizations that can help train the unemployed, link them with businesses for the jobs of the future. It requires companies and CEOs to set an example by providing decent wages, and salaries, and benefits for their workers, and a shot for somebody who is down on his or her luck. We know that’s our strength -- our people, our communities, our businesses.
But government can’t stand on the sidelines in our efforts. Because government is us. It can and should reflect our deepest values and commitments. And if we refocus our energies on building an economy that grows for everybody, and gives every child in this country a fair chance at success, then I remain confident that the future still looks brighter than the past, and that the best days for this country we love are still ahead.
(Applause.)
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
But here’s an important point. The decades-long shifts in the economy have hurt all groups: poor and middle class; inner city and rural folks; men and women; and Americans of all races. And as a consequence, some of the social patterns that contribute to declining mobility that were once attributed to the urban poor -- that’s a particular problem for the inner city: single-parent households or drug abuse -- it turns out now we’re seeing that pop up everywhere.
A new study shows that disparities in education, mental health, obesity, absent fathers, isolation from church, isolation from community groups -- these gaps are now as much about growing up rich or poor as they are about anything else. The gap in test scores between poor kids and wealthy kids is now nearly twice what it is between white kids and black kids. Kids with working-class parents are 10 times likelier than kids with middle- or upper-class parents to go through a time when their parents have no income. So the fact is this: The opportunity gap in America is now as much about class as it is about race, and that gap is growing.
So if we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts. (Applause.)
Second, we need to dispel the myth that the goals of growing the economy and reducing inequality are necessarily in conflict, when they should actually work in concert. We know from our history that our economy grows best from the middle out, when growth is more widely shared. And we know that beyond a certain level of inequality, growth actually slows altogether.
Third, we need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality. It’s true that government cannot prevent all the downsides of the technological change and global competition that are out there right now, and some of those forces are also some of the things that are helping us grow. And it’s also true that some programs in the past, like welfare before it was reformed, were sometimes poorly designed, created disincentives to work.
But we’ve also seen how government action time and again can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class. Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining, and a minimum wage -- these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans. (Applause.) Likewise, when previous generations declared that every citizen of this country deserved a basic measure of security -- a floor through which they could not fall -- we helped millions of Americans live in dignity, and gave millions more the confidence to aspire to something better, by taking a risk on a great idea.
Without Social Security, nearly half of seniors would be living in poverty -- half. Today, fewer than 1 in 10 do. Before Medicare, only half of all seniors had some form of health insurance. Today, virtually all do. And because we’ve strengthened that safety net, and expanded pro-work and pro-family tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, a recent study found that the poverty rate has fallen by 40 percent since the 1960s. And these endeavors didn’t just make us a better country; they reaffirmed that we are a great country.
So we can make a difference on this. In fact, that’s our generation’s task -- to rebuild America’s economic and civic foundation to continue the expansion of opportunity for this generation and the next generation. (Applause.) And like Neera, I take this personally. I’m only here because this country educated my grandfather on the GI Bill. When my father left and my mom hit hard times trying to raise my sister and me while she was going to school, this country helped make sure we didn’t go hungry. When Michelle, the daughter of a shift worker at a water plant and a secretary, wanted to go to college, just like me, this country helped us afford it until we could pay it back.
So what drives me as a grandson, a son, a father -- as an American -- is to make sure that every striving, hardworking, optimistic kid in America has the same incredible chance that this country gave me. (Applause.) It has been the driving force between everything we’ve done these past five years. And over the course of the next year, and for the rest of my presidency, that’s where you should expect my administration to focus all our efforts. (Applause.)
Now, you'll be pleased to know this is not a State of the Union Address. (Laughter.) And many of the ideas that can make the biggest difference in expanding opportunity I’ve presented before. But let me offer a few key principles, just a roadmap that I believe should guide us in both our legislative agenda and our administrative efforts.
To begin with, we have to continue to relentlessly push a growth agenda. It may be true that in today’s economy, growth alone does not guarantee higher wages and incomes. We've seen that. But what's also true is we can’t tackle inequality if the economic pie is shrinking or stagnant. The fact is if you’re a progressive and you want to help the middle class and the working poor, you’ve still got to be concerned about competitiveness and productivity and business confidence that spurs private sector investment.
And that’s why from day one we’ve worked to get the economy growing and help our businesses hire. And thanks to their resilience and innovation, they’ve created nearly 8 million new jobs over the past 44 months. And now we’ve got to grow the economy even faster. And we've got to keep working to make America a magnet for good, middle-class jobs to replace the ones that we’ve lost in recent decades -- jobs in manufacturing and energy and infrastructure and technology.
And that means simplifying our corporate tax code in a way that closes wasteful loopholes and ends incentives to ship jobs overseas. (Applause.) And by broadening the base, we can actually lower rates to encourage more companies to hire here and use some of the money we save to create good jobs rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports, and all the infrastructure our businesses need.
It means a trade agenda that grows exports and works for the middle class. It means streamlining regulations that are outdated or unnecessary or too costly. And it means coming together around a responsible budget -- one that grows our economy faster right now and shrinks our long-term deficits, one that unwinds the harmful sequester cuts that haven't made a lot of sense -- (applause) -- and then frees up resources to invest in things like the scientific research that's always unleashed new innovation and new industries.
When it comes to our budget, we should not be stuck in a stale debate from two years ago or three years ago. A relentlessly growing deficit of opportunity is a bigger threat to our future than our rapidly shrinking fiscal deficit. (Applause.)
So that’s step one towards restoring mobility: making sure our economy is growing faster. Step two is making sure we empower more Americans with the skills and education they need to compete in a highly competitive global economy.
We know that education is the most important predictor of income today, so we launched a Race to the Top in our schools. We’re supporting states that have raised standards for teaching and learning. We’re pushing for redesigned high schools that graduate more kids with the technical training and apprenticeships, and in-demand, high-tech skills that can lead directly to a good job and a middle-class life.
We know it’s harder to find a job today without some higher education, so we’ve helped more students go to college with grants and loans that go farther than before. We’ve made it more practical to repay those loans. And today, more students are graduating from college than ever before. We’re also pursuing an aggressive strategy to promote innovation that reins in tuition costs. We’ve got lower costs so that young people are not burdened by enormous debt when they make the right decision to get higher education. And next week, Michelle and I will bring together college presidents and non-profits to lead a campaign to help more low-income students attend and succeed in college. (Applause.)
But while higher education may be the surest path to the middle class, it’s not the only one. So we should offer our people the best technical education in the world. That’s why we’ve worked to connect local businesses with community colleges, so that workers young and old can earn the new skills that earn them more money.
And I’ve also embraced an idea that I know all of you at the Center for American Progress have championed -- and, by the way, Republican governors in a couple of states have championed -- and that’s making high-quality preschool available to every child in America. (Applause.) We know that kids in these programs grow up likelier to get more education, earn higher wages, form more stable families of their own. It starts a virtuous cycle, not a vicious one. And we should invest in that. We should give all of our children that chance.
And as we empower our young people for future success, the third part of this middle-class economics is empowering our workers. It’s time to ensure our collective bargaining laws function as they’re supposed to -- (applause) -- so unions have a level playing field to organize for a better deal for workers and better wages for the middle class. It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women will have more tools to fight pay discrimination. (Applause.) It’s time to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act so workers can’t be fired for who they are or who they love. (Applause.)
And even though we’re bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, we’re creating more good-paying jobs in education and health care and business services; we know that we’re going to have a greater and greater portion of our people in the service sector. And we know that there are airport workers, and fast-food workers, and nurse assistants, and retail salespeople who work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office. (Applause.)
This shouldn’t be an ideological question. It was Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, who once said, “They who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.” And for those of you who don’t speak old-English -- (laughter) -- let me translate. It means if you work hard, you should make a decent living. (Applause.) If you work hard, you should be able to support a family.
Now, we all know the arguments that have been used against a higher minimum wage. Some say it actually hurts low-wage workers -- businesses will be less likely to hire them. But there’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs, and research shows it raises incomes for low-wage workers and boosts short-term economic growth. (Applause.)
Others argue that if we raise the minimum wage, companies will just pass those costs on to consumers. But a growing chorus of businesses, small and large, argue differently. And already, there are extraordinary companies in America that provide decent wages, salaries, and benefits, and training for their workers, and deliver a great product to consumers.
SAS in North Carolina offers childcare and sick leave. REI, a company my Secretary of the Interior used to run, offers retirement plans and strives to cultivate a good work balance. There are companies out there that do right by their workers. They recognize that paying a decent wage actually helps their bottom line, reduces turnover. It means workers have more money to spend, to save, maybe eventually start a business of their own.
A broad majority of Americans agree we should raise the minimum wage. That’s why, last month, voters in New Jersey decided to become the 20th state to raise theirs even higher. That’s why, yesterday, the D.C. Council voted to do it, too. I agree with those voters. (Applause.) I agree with those voters, and I’m going to keep pushing until we get a higher minimum wage for hard-working Americans across the entire country. It will be good for our economy. It will be good for our families. (Applause.)
Number four, as I alluded to earlier, we still need targeted programs for the communities and workers that have been hit hardest by economic change and the Great Recession. These communities are no longer limited to the inner city. They’re found in neighborhoods hammered by the housing crisis, manufacturing towns hit hard by years of plants packing up, landlocked rural areas where young folks oftentimes feel like they've got to leave just to find a job. There are communities that just aren’t generating enough jobs anymore.
So we’ve put forward new plans to help these communities and their residents, because we’ve watched cities like Pittsburgh or my hometown of Chicago revamp themselves. And if we give more cities the tools to do it -- not handouts, but a hand up -- cities like Detroit can do it, too. So in a few weeks, we’ll announce the first of these Promise Zones, urban and rural communities where we’re going to support local efforts focused on a national goal -- and that is a child’s course in life should not be determined by the zip code he’s born in, but by the strength of his work ethic and the scope of his dreams. (Applause.)
And we're also going to have to do more for the long-term unemployed. For people who have been out of work for more than six months, often through no fault of their own, life is a catch-22. Companies won’t give their résumé an honest look because they’ve been laid off so long -- but they’ve been laid off so long because companies won’t give their résumé an honest look. (Laughter.) And that’s why earlier this year, I challenged CEOs from some of America’s best companies to give these Americans a fair shot. And next month, many of them will join us at the White House for an announcement about this.
Fifth, we've got to revamp retirement to protect Americans in their golden years, to make sure another housing collapse doesn’t steal the savings in their homes. We've also got to strengthen our safety net for a new age, so it doesn’t just protect people who hit a run of bad luck from falling into poverty, but also propels them back out of poverty.
Today, nearly half of full-time workers and 80 percent of part-time workers don’t have a pension or retirement account at their job. About half of all households don’t have any retirement savings. So we’re going to have to do more to encourage private savings and shore up the promise of Social Security for future generations. And remember, these are promises we make to one another. We don’t do it to replace the free market, but we do it to reduce risk in our society by giving people the ability to take a chance and catch them if they fall. One study shows that more than half of Americans will experience poverty at some point during their adult lives. Think about that. This is not an isolated situation. More than half of Americans at some point in their lives will experience poverty.
That’s why we have nutrition assistance or the program known as SNAP, because it makes a difference for a mother who’s working, but is just having a hard time putting food on the table for her kids. That’s why we have unemployment insurance, because it makes a difference for a father who lost his job and is out there looking for a new one that he can keep a roof over his kids' heads. By the way, Christmastime is no time for Congress to tell more than 1 million of these Americans that they have lost their unemployment insurance, which is what will happen if Congress does not act before they leave on their holiday vacation. (Applause.)
The point is these programs are not typically hammocks for people to just lie back and relax. These programs are almost always temporary means for hardworking people to stay afloat while they try to find a new job or go into school to retrain themselves for the jobs that are out there, or sometimes just to cope with a bout of bad luck. Progressives should be open to reforms that actually strengthen these programs and make them more responsive to a 21st century economy. For example, we should be willing to look at fresh ideas to revamp unemployment and disability programs to encourage faster and higher rates of re-employment without cutting benefits. We shouldn't weaken fundamental protections built over generations, because given the constant churn in today’s economy and the disabilities that many of our friends and neighbors live with, they're needed more than ever. We should strengthen them and adapt them to new circumstances so they work even better.
But understand that these programs of social insurance benefit all of us, because we don't know when we might have a run of bad luck. (Applause.) We don't know when we might lose a job. Of course, for decades, there was one yawning gap in the safety net that did more than anything else to expose working families to the insecurities of today’s economy -- namely, our broken health care system.
That’s why we fought for the Affordable Care Act -- (applause) -- because 14,000 Americans lost their health insurance every single day, and even more died each year because they didn’t have health insurance at all. We did it because millions of families who thought they had coverage were driven into bankruptcy by out-of-pocket costs that they didn't realize would be there. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens couldn’t get any coverage at all. And Dr. King once said, "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”
Well, not anymore. (Applause.) Because in the three years since we passed this law, the share of Americans with insurance is up, the growth of health care costs are down to their slowest rate in 50 years. More people have insurance, and more have new benefits and protections -- 100 million Americans who have gained the right for free preventive care like mammograms and contraception; the more than 7 million Americans who have saved an average of $1,200 on their prescription medicine; every American who won’t go broke when they get sick because their insurance can’t limit their care anymore.
More people without insurance have gained insurance -- more than 3 million young Americans who have been able to stay on their parents’ plan, the more than half a million Americans and counting who are poised to get covered starting on January 1st, some for the very first time.
And it is these numbers -- not the ones in any poll -- that will ultimately determine the fate of this law. (Applause.) It's the measurable outcomes in reduced bankruptcies and reduced hours that have been lost because somebody couldn't make it to work, and healthier kids with better performance in schools, and young entrepreneurs who have the freedom to go out there and try a new idea -- those are the things that will ultimately reduce a major source of inequality and help ensure more Americans get the start that they need to succeed in the future.
I have acknowledged more than once that we didn’t roll out parts of this law as well as we should have. But the law is already working in major ways that benefit millions of Americans right now, even as we’ve begun to slow the rise in health care costs, which is good for family budgets, good for federal and state budgets, and good for the budgets of businesses small and large. So this law is going to work. And for the sake of our economic security, it needs to work. (Applause.)
And as people in states as different as California and Kentucky sign up every single day for health insurance, signing up in droves, they’re proving they want that economic security. If the Senate Republican leader still thinks he is going to be able to repeal this someday, he might want to check with the more than 60,000 people in his home state who are already set to finally have coverage that frees them from the fear of financial ruin, and lets them afford to take their kids to see a doctor. (Applause.)
So let me end by addressing the elephant in the room here, which is the seeming inability to get anything done in Washington these days. I realize we are not going to resolve all of our political debates over the best ways to reduce inequality and increase upward mobility this year, or next year, or in the next five years. But it is important that we have a serious debate about these issues. For the longer that current trends are allowed to continue, the more it will feed the cynicism and fear that many Americans are feeling right now -- that they’ll never be able to repay the debt they took on to go to college, they’ll never be able to save enough to retire, they’ll never see their own children land a good job that supports a family.
And that’s why, even as I will keep on offering my own ideas for expanding opportunity, I’ll also keep challenging and welcoming those who oppose my ideas to offer their own. If Republicans have concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor, let’s hear them. I want to know what they are. If you don’t think we should raise the minimum wage, let’s hear your idea to increase people’s earnings. If you don’t think every child should have access to preschool, tell us what you’d do differently to give them a better shot.
If you still don’t like Obamacare -- and I know you don’t -- (laughter) -- even though it’s built on market-based ideas of choice and competition in the private sector, then you should explain how, exactly, you’d cut costs, and cover more people, and make insurance more secure. You owe it to the American people to tell us what you are for, not just what you’re against. (Applause.) That way we can have a vigorous and meaningful debate. That’s what the American people deserve. That’s what the times demand. It’s not enough anymore to just say we should just get our government out of the way and let the unfettered market take care of it -- for our experience tells us that’s just not true. (Applause.)
Look, I’ve never believed that government can solve every problem or should -- and neither do you. We know that ultimately our strength is grounded in our people -- individuals out there, striving, working, making things happen. It depends on community, a rich and generous sense of community -- that’s at the core of what happens at THEARC here every day. You understand that turning back rising inequality and expanding opportunity requires parents taking responsibility for their kids, kids taking responsibility to work hard. It requires religious leaders who mobilize their congregations to rebuild neighborhoods block by block, requires civic organizations that can help train the unemployed, link them with businesses for the jobs of the future. It requires companies and CEOs to set an example by providing decent wages, and salaries, and benefits for their workers, and a shot for somebody who is down on his or her luck. We know that’s our strength -- our people, our communities, our businesses.
But government can’t stand on the sidelines in our efforts. Because government is us. It can and should reflect our deepest values and commitments. And if we refocus our energies on building an economy that grows for everybody, and gives every child in this country a fair chance at success, then I remain confident that the future still looks brighter than the past, and that the best days for this country we love are still ahead.
(Applause.)
Thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END
12:20 P.M. EST
.
Special envoy says Obama admin. moving aggressively to transfer Gitmo detainees
Transcript
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Pentagon announced a significant milestone was reached this week in the long saga to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. The last three ethnic Uighurs from China were released and sent to Slovakia. A total of 22 Uighurs were captured after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001.
They were found not to be a threat, and a judge ordered them freed in 2008, but the U.S. struggled to find a place to send them. All told, nine detainees were transferred in the month of December.
So, just who has been released and under what conditions? And what will happen to the remaining 155 prisoners?
For that, we turn to the State Department's special envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan.
Cliff Sloan, welcome to the NewsHour.
CLIFF SLOAN, U.S. State Department Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure: Thank you. Happy to be here.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So there was a slump in the release of prisoners for a period of about two years, until you came in this summer. Just in the last month, as we have said, several released.
What's changed since you have been there?
CLIFF SLOAN: Well, Judy, as you know, in May, the president gave a speech at the National Defense University.
And he strongly reiterated and renewed his commitment to close Guantanamo. And he's been very committed to closing it from the beginning. And in this speech, he said, we were going to move forward on transfers, we were going to move forward on closing the facility.
He announced the appointment of special envoys at the State Department and the Defense Department who would be focused and moving forward on closure. I started the beginning of July. Paul Lewis, my counterpart at the Defense Department, started in November. And so we are moving full-speed ahead.
And I'm also pleased that we are able to work with Congress in the last few months to change the law in a way that removes some of the obstacles and restrictions that had led to that slump that you referred to. And I think that's also going to be very helpful to us in moving forward.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, is that what made the difference? And how did you prioritize who was going to be released first among these prisoners?
CLIFF SLOAN: Well, in terms of changing the law -- and the law will be different in 2014 -- I think that is going to help us very much in moving forward with the transfers.
In terms of prioritizing the transfers, let's step back for a second and have an overview of the facility; 155 detainees are there right now; 76 now are approved for transfer; 79 are not approved for transfer. And when I say approved for transfer, there's a very important point that I think people don't realize, which is that the executive branch in 2009 and 2010 undertook a very rigorous review by the national security agencies and departments.
And those who are approved for transfer were unanimously determined that they should be transferred, subject to appropriate security arrangements and humane treatment arrangements.
JUDY WOODRUFF: That they were no longer a threat, or...
CLIFF SLOAN: Well, that they should be -- that they should be transferred, subject to appropriate security and humane treatment, assurances and agreements with other countries, that there was no need to continue to hold them.
And so those are the priority. And we have been moving forward as aggressively and quickly as we can on those approved for transfer. Now, let me just say...
(CROSSTALK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: Can I just say, is the hold -- has the holdup then been finding the countries, the places that will take them?
CLIFF SLOAN: Well, it's a -- it's a complicated process, which includes, as I said, there were the congressional restrictions which we think were far more burdensome than necessary and helpful.
There's the question of the countries they're going to. And in some cases, it's to their home countries. And in some cases, if that's not possible for security or humane treatment reasons, it would be to third countries. And that takes negotiations. And it is a -- it is a complicated process.
But one thing that I think is very important, Judy, and that I have tried to emphasize and Paul Lewis at the Defense Department has tried to emphasize, we don't want to relitigate the old battles. We don't be looking backward. We want to be looking ahead.
And we feel very strongly there is a new air of possibility on moving forward on closing the Guantanamo detention facility. That is what we are focused on. We don't want to go over what happened in the -- during the last several months and the years when there was that slump. We feel very good about moving ahead now.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, of the 155 left, you said 70-some are cleared for -- how long is it going to take to get those detainees out of the country to a new location?
CLIFF SLOAN: Well, I can't give you an exact time frame, but what I can tell you is, we are working just as hard as we can. We are moving forward as aggressively as we can.
As you mentioned, nine were transferred in the month of December alone, 11 in the last couple of months. We are working very hard on all those approved for transfer. But the other point that I want to make which is also very important is, the 79 who are not approved for transfer, we have also started a new administrative process for them, a new hearing, where they have the opportunity to show that they now should be approved for transfer. They get a fresh look.
And that's important as well in moving forward.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So it's -- so they may not necessarily stay at Guantanamo, because right now it looks as if you have got several dozen of them who are -- who will be there indefinitely?
CLIFF SLOAN: Well, they -- as I said, we have 79 who are not approved for transfer. Eight of those are facing criminal charges. So, of the remaining 71, they now will have this new administrative hearing.
That's already started. That's going to accelerate on a rolling basis, and that is going to be very important in moving forward.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe that Guantanamo will close within the foreseeable future, and that all detainees will be taken care of one way or another?
CLIFF SLOAN: Absolutely.
We are going to close the Guantanamo detention facility. I have no doubt about that. And President Obama is very strongly committed to that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: By when?
CLIFF SLOAN: I'm not going to give you a time frame on it, but I am absolutely convinced that we going to close the Guantanamo facility.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Why are you convinced, if you don't -- if you can't say how long it's going to take?
CLIFF SLOAN: Well, I can't say how long it's going to take because there are variables, and I don't want to give an artificial timeline. I don't want to just pluck a date out of the air and say it.
But those who have been approved for transfer, we will do everything we can to transfer those. Those who are not approved for transfer will have the new administrative hearing. Now, there is more work to be done with Congress, because there currently is a ban on bringing any detainees to the United States, including for prosecution in our courts.
And we think that is unwise. And we think that restriction should be lifted. But we are going...
(CROSSTALK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: And do you think you can be successful changing that?
(CROSSTALK)
CLIFF SLOAN: I think so. And I think you are seeing a new recognition across the spectrum that it's time to move on, it is time to put this problem before us.
When you look at the facts and when you just take a sort of reasoned view of it, there is a much better solution out there than just -- just keeping them at Guantanamo. And we can and we will close the Guantanamo detention facility.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Cliff Sloan, who is the special envoy for Guantanamo closure, we thank you.
CLIFF SLOAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Source
.
Thursday, January 02, 2014
Colorado marijuana sales: Long lines for smooth rollout of legal business
Throngs of buyers, media, and law enforcement officials greeted the Wednesday morning commencement of legal recreational marijuana sales in Colorado, and there were few complaints.
By Fabien Tepper, Staff writer / January 2, 2014

A long line of buyers trails from a store selling marijuana in Pueblo West, Colo, Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The nation's first recreational pot industry opened in Colorado on Wednesday, kicking off a marijuana experiment that will be watched closely around the world.
John Wark/AP
As the first light of 2014 hit the Rocky Mountains, buyers formed long lines in blustery Colorado weather to participate in the first legal sales of recreational marijuana in the United States.
Fabien Tepper
Staff writer
Fabien Tepper writes for the Monitor's national desk. She holds a master's degree in Animals and Public Policy from Tufts University, and a bachelor's degree in art from Swarthmore College.
In Pictures Legalize marijuana?
Recent posts
01.02.14
Colorado marijuana sales: Long lines for smooth rollout of legal business
12.31.13
New Year's Eve forecast: where revelers will have to bundle up
12.23.13
Bizarre holiday-week weather ending just in time for Christmas (+video)
12.21.13
Bristol Palin: Why she backs Duck Dynasty patriarch's views on homosexuality (+video)
12.20.13
Holiday forecast: Storm clogs weekend travel, but Christmas looking calm (+video)
Related stories
How much do you know about marijuana? Take the quiz
Focus Legal pot is imminent in Colorado and Washington. Are they ready?
Teen marijuana use rises as risk perception wanes
Latin America Monitor Uruguay legalizes marijuana: A white flag in the war on drugs? (+video)
The Christian Science Monitor
Weekly Digital Edition
Accompanied by a swell of media coverage and law enforcement officials, sales began at 8 a.m. Wednesday, and "government officials marveled at the calm," according to a report in the Denver Post.
‘‘Everything’s gone pretty smoothly,’’ Barbara Brohl, head of Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, told the Associated Press.
RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about marijuana? Take the quiz
Thirty-seven licensed retailers opened for sales, most of them in Denver, according to the Post. Denver police issued two citations for public marijuana consumption during the day, but the department could not confirm that these were related to the day's sales.
Smoking pot in public remains illegal in Colorado, but the New York Times reports that some of the day's customers got around that problem by buying edible products like pot-laced chocolate truffles and baked goods.
Perhaps the only blip in the new industry's roll-out were inflated prices that customers worried could make the drug less affordable for medical users. Colorado has not established a statewide pricing structure, the AP reports, and midafternoon Wednesday at least one dispensary was charging $70 for one-eighth of an ounce of high-quality marijuana. The day before, medical marijuana patients paid as little as $25 for the same amount.
‘‘We hope that the focus on recreational doesn’t take the focus away from patients who really need this medicine,’’ Laura Kriho of the patient advocacy group Cannabis Therapy Institute told AP.
Any Colorado resident who is at least 21 can now buy up to an ounce or marijuana legally, and out-of-state visitors can buy up to a quarter ounce, which they must consume in Colorado. To help keep the crop from migrating to states where it remains illegal, the Denver airport has posted signs warning travelers that they cannot take pot with them when they leave.
This was part of the state's effort to meet requirements laid out in August by the US Justice Department. Despite a conflict between federal marijuana law and the recent legalization by Washington State and Colorado, Justice said it would not interfere in the new industry as long as the two states effectively enforced eight regulatory points, which include the following:
• Prevent use by minors.
• Prevent pot that is grown for sale in the state from migrating out of state.
• Prevent the diversion of marijuana revenue to organized crime.
• Prevent state-authorized activity from being used as a cover for illegal activity.
• Prevent drugged driving and other adverse public-health effects.
Colorado has approved 136 licenses for retail sales, three-quarters in Denver County and all sites that were previously selling marijuana for medical purposes. State officials told the Post that recreational pot sales could add over $200 million to the state's economy.
“If Colorado is able to successfully legalize marijuana without causing a social backlash, the tourism, tax, and other considerations are likely to compel several other states to quickly follow suit,” writes the paper.
Supporters told the paper that enough signatures had been collected to let Alaskans vote on legalization this year, likely followed by Oregon. By 2016, ballot measures could be considered in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, and Nevada.
Colorado's is the only fully legal marijuana industry in the world; in the Netherlands, where it is famously tolerated and sold in cafés, it is not actually legal. Washington State and Uruguay in South America have both legalized pot, but neither government has yet hammered out a regulatory system. Washington's industry, regulated by the state's Liquor Control Board, is expected to open for business by the spring of this year.
Source
.
.
2014 Begins With A Roar
Ball drops in NYC's Times Square, ushering in 2014
Photo (Courtesy) http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Ball-drops-in-NYC-s-Times-Square-ushering-in-2014-5105982.php
[http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/25/47/44/5667099/3/628x471.jpg]
In freezing New York City's Times Square, a sea of horn-tooting, hat-wearing revelers cheered and some smooched as the famed crystal ball dropped at midnight.
Bronx-born U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the 60-second countdown and pushed the button that unleashed the shimmering orb with 2,688 crystals, a role usually filled by the New York City mayor.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on his last day in office, sat out the celebration after 12 years on the job, while newly elected Mayor Bill de Blasio took the oath of office just after midnight at his Brooklyn home.
Read more
.
.
[Wow, on the same day she makes the BIG HEADLINES once again!]
Justice Sotomayor grants temporary Obamacare exemption to nuns
The Catholic nuns would have faced 'draconian fines' if they failed to provide contraceptive coverage, as the healthcare law requires.
By David G. Savage and Maeve Reston December 31, 2013, 10:33 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary exemption late Tuesday to a small group of Catholic nuns that shields it from having to comply with a part of President Obama's healthcare law that requires it to provide contraceptive coverage in its insurance plans.
She acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for the group who said the nuns faced "draconian fines" beginning on New Year's Day if they failed to comply with the law widely known as Obamacare.
Sotomayor gave the government until Friday to file a response in the case. Her order extends only to the group of nuns and does not apply more broadly to the Affordable Care Act and its requirements.
The Supreme Court is facing a series of appeals from religious organizations and private corporations whose owners object to paying for contraceptives. In March, the court will hear two cases involving corporations and the contraceptive mandate.
The Obama administration has exempted churches and other religious groups from providing contraceptive coverage. However, it has granted a more limited exemption for religiously affiliated charities. Although they need not pay for this coverage directly, their insurers are required to include the coverage in their policies.
Nonetheless, several religious charities have continued to press for exemptions to the law. And on Tuesday evening, hours before the mandate was to take effect, they sent several emergency appeals to the court seeking an emergency exemption.
It was unclear how the Obama administration would proceed after Sotomayor's order. Obama is vacationing with his family in Hawaii this week, and the White House is not expected to make any comment before the Justice Department files a response to Sotomayor's ruling on Friday.
A number of religious groups with similar objections have vigorously challenged the Affordable Care Act in court. The Colorado order of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, asked for the last-minute ruling Tuesday because the healthcare law's provisions go into effect Jan. 1.
In late November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear several cases that could settle the dispute between the Obama administration and businesses run by Christian conservatives over whether those companies must pay for birth control if providing that coverage is in conflict with the religious beliefs of the business owner.
The November announcement that the Supreme Court would hear the constitutional challenge to the birth control mandate in Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., as well as another case, signaled a new phase of the political battle over the healthcare law.
David Green, founder of Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Stores, has argued that business owners "should not have to choose between violating their beliefs and violating the law."
david.savage@latimes.com
maeve.reston@latimes.com
Savage reported from Washington and Reston from Honolulu.
Roberts calls for more money for courts
Roberts spoke out about sequestration's affect on the courts. | AP Photo
By TAL KOPAN | 1/1/14 8:28 AM EST
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used his year-end report for 2013 to call for more funding for federal courts and lambaste sequestration’s effect on the judiciary.
In the New Year’s Eve missive, Roberts referenced the seasonally appropriate “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens to guide a “look at what has made our federal court system work in the past, what we are doing in the present to preserve it in an era of fiscal constraint, and what the future holds if the judiciary does not receive the funding it needs.”
Roberts wrote that while the judiciary recognizes the need for frugality, its operating costs are only 0.2 percent of the federal budget and it has been making austerity moves for years, even before the sequester went into effect. Because courts cannot manage their caseload, however, Roberts said the effects of sequestration hit them harder.
“The impact of the sequester was more significant on the courts than elsewhere in the government, because virtually all of their core functions are constitutionally and statutorily required,” Roberts wrote. “Unlike most Executive Branch agencies, the courts do not have discretionary programs they can eliminate or postpone in response to budget cuts.”
The chief justice also went through the appropriations request submitted by the judiciary to Congress, saying it was conservative and the minimum needed for the courts to operate properly.
“In the coming weeks, and into the future, I encourage the president and Congress to be attentive to the needs of the Judicial Branch and avert the adverse consequences that would result from funding the judiciary below its minimal needs,” Roberts wrote. “It takes no imagination to see that failing to meet the judiciary’s essential requirements undermines the public’s confidence in all three branches of government. Both ‘A Christmas Carol’ and ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ have happy endings. We are encouraged that the story of funding for the federal judiciary — though perhaps not as gripping a tale — will too.”
The Supreme Court justices and federal judges have not been shy in advocating for court funding under sequestration. The chief judges of 87 district courts wrote to Congress last August pleading for more money and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer made a rare appearance before a congressional hearing last March to make the case, as well.
.
.
Photo (Courtesy) http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Ball-drops-in-NYC-s-Times-Square-ushering-in-2014-5105982.php
[http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/25/47/44/5667099/3/628x471.jpg]
In freezing New York City's Times Square, a sea of horn-tooting, hat-wearing revelers cheered and some smooched as the famed crystal ball dropped at midnight.
Bronx-born U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the 60-second countdown and pushed the button that unleashed the shimmering orb with 2,688 crystals, a role usually filled by the New York City mayor.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on his last day in office, sat out the celebration after 12 years on the job, while newly elected Mayor Bill de Blasio took the oath of office just after midnight at his Brooklyn home.
Read more
.
.
---Somewhat related---
.[Wow, on the same day she makes the BIG HEADLINES once again!]
Justice Sotomayor grants temporary Obamacare exemption to nuns
The Catholic nuns would have faced 'draconian fines' if they failed to provide contraceptive coverage, as the healthcare law requires.
By David G. Savage and Maeve Reston December 31, 2013, 10:33 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary exemption late Tuesday to a small group of Catholic nuns that shields it from having to comply with a part of President Obama's healthcare law that requires it to provide contraceptive coverage in its insurance plans.
She acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for the group who said the nuns faced "draconian fines" beginning on New Year's Day if they failed to comply with the law widely known as Obamacare.
Sotomayor gave the government until Friday to file a response in the case. Her order extends only to the group of nuns and does not apply more broadly to the Affordable Care Act and its requirements.
The Supreme Court is facing a series of appeals from religious organizations and private corporations whose owners object to paying for contraceptives. In March, the court will hear two cases involving corporations and the contraceptive mandate.
The Obama administration has exempted churches and other religious groups from providing contraceptive coverage. However, it has granted a more limited exemption for religiously affiliated charities. Although they need not pay for this coverage directly, their insurers are required to include the coverage in their policies.
Nonetheless, several religious charities have continued to press for exemptions to the law. And on Tuesday evening, hours before the mandate was to take effect, they sent several emergency appeals to the court seeking an emergency exemption.
It was unclear how the Obama administration would proceed after Sotomayor's order. Obama is vacationing with his family in Hawaii this week, and the White House is not expected to make any comment before the Justice Department files a response to Sotomayor's ruling on Friday.
A number of religious groups with similar objections have vigorously challenged the Affordable Care Act in court. The Colorado order of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, asked for the last-minute ruling Tuesday because the healthcare law's provisions go into effect Jan. 1.
In late November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear several cases that could settle the dispute between the Obama administration and businesses run by Christian conservatives over whether those companies must pay for birth control if providing that coverage is in conflict with the religious beliefs of the business owner.
The November announcement that the Supreme Court would hear the constitutional challenge to the birth control mandate in Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., as well as another case, signaled a new phase of the political battle over the healthcare law.
David Green, founder of Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Stores, has argued that business owners "should not have to choose between violating their beliefs and violating the law."
david.savage@latimes.com
maeve.reston@latimes.com
Savage reported from Washington and Reston from Honolulu.
---Related indeed---
Roberts calls for more money for courts
Roberts spoke out about sequestration's affect on the courts. | AP Photo
By TAL KOPAN | 1/1/14 8:28 AM EST
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used his year-end report for 2013 to call for more funding for federal courts and lambaste sequestration’s effect on the judiciary.
In the New Year’s Eve missive, Roberts referenced the seasonally appropriate “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens to guide a “look at what has made our federal court system work in the past, what we are doing in the present to preserve it in an era of fiscal constraint, and what the future holds if the judiciary does not receive the funding it needs.”
Roberts wrote that while the judiciary recognizes the need for frugality, its operating costs are only 0.2 percent of the federal budget and it has been making austerity moves for years, even before the sequester went into effect. Because courts cannot manage their caseload, however, Roberts said the effects of sequestration hit them harder.
“The impact of the sequester was more significant on the courts than elsewhere in the government, because virtually all of their core functions are constitutionally and statutorily required,” Roberts wrote. “Unlike most Executive Branch agencies, the courts do not have discretionary programs they can eliminate or postpone in response to budget cuts.”
The chief justice also went through the appropriations request submitted by the judiciary to Congress, saying it was conservative and the minimum needed for the courts to operate properly.
“In the coming weeks, and into the future, I encourage the president and Congress to be attentive to the needs of the Judicial Branch and avert the adverse consequences that would result from funding the judiciary below its minimal needs,” Roberts wrote. “It takes no imagination to see that failing to meet the judiciary’s essential requirements undermines the public’s confidence in all three branches of government. Both ‘A Christmas Carol’ and ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ have happy endings. We are encouraged that the story of funding for the federal judiciary — though perhaps not as gripping a tale — will too.”
The Supreme Court justices and federal judges have not been shy in advocating for court funding under sequestration. The chief judges of 87 district courts wrote to Congress last August pleading for more money and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer made a rare appearance before a congressional hearing last March to make the case, as well.
Six are Roman Catholics and Three Jewish!
| Service | Birth | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name, state | Assoc. Justice | Chief Justice | Yrs | Place | Date | Died | Religion |
| Antonin Scalia, DC | 1986– | — | N.J. | 1936 | — | Roman Catholic | |
| Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif. | 1988– | — | Calif. | 1936 | — | Roman Catholic | |
| Clarence Thomas, DC | 1991– | — | Ga. | 1948 | — | Roman Catholic | |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC | 1993– | — | N.Y. | 1933 | — | Jewish | |
| Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. | 1994– | — | Calif. | 1938 | — | Jewish | |
| John G. Roberts, DC | 2005– | — | N.Y. | 1955 | — | Roman Catholic | |
| Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J. | 2006– | — | N.J. | 1950 | — | Roman Catholic | |
| Sonia Sotomayor N.Y. | 2009– | — | N.Y. | 1954 | — | Roman Catholic | |
| Elena Kagan N.Y. | 2010– | — | N.Y. | 1960 | — | Jewish | |
.
http://www.factmonster.com/us/supreme-court/supreme-court-members.html.
.
It’s Time to Play ‘Bill de Blasio or the Pope?’
By Dan Amira
Since ascending to the papacy eight months ago, Pope Francis has turned heads for a number of (relatively) progressive positions on topics like homosexuality, atheism, and contraception. Today, the Pope's release of his first "apostolic exhortation" — a kind of official Pope wish list for Catholicism — continued that trend. See if you can tell which of the following quotes below were written by Pope Francis, and which were uttered by Marxist New York mayor-elect Bill de Blasio.
"Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless."
"We cannot resign ourselves to the mind-set that says rising inequality is a necessary byproduct of urban success.”
"Masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape."
"Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness."
"Money must serve, not rule!"
"We cannot expect prosperity to trickle down from the top."
"Until exclusion and inequality in society ... is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence."
"I am not a free-marketeer."
"Inequality is the root of social ills."
"We can no longer trust in the... invisible hand of the market."
See your score here after you’ve answered all the questions!
Source
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




