Obama, Harper stay apart on pipeline issue, ink other agreements
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The visiting Canadian leader and the American president on Wednesday remained noncommittal on a controversial oil pipeline linking the two countries but signed a border deal.
Addressing a joint press conference at the White House, with Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President Barack Obama said, “With respect to the politics, look, this is a big project with big consequences.”
Asking for a assessment for environmental impact, Obama said, “We’ve seen Democrats and Republicans express concerns about it. And it is my job as president of the United States to make sure that a process is followed that examines all the options.”
Harper, on the other hand refused to be drawn into any controversy saying, “You can appreciate that I would not comment on the domestic politics of this issue or any other issue here in the United States.”
Harper added that Obama had an “open mind” on the project, but wanted a full assessment carried out. “He’s indicated to me, as he’s indicated to you today, that he is following a proper (process) to eventually take that decision here in the United States, and that he has an open mind in regards to what the final decision may or may not be,” Canadian leader said about the 1,600-mile pipeline that would run from Canada to the Texas coast.
“My position, the position of the government of Canada on this issue, is very well known,” said Harper, hinting at his backing for the Keystone XL plan, which is projected to create jobs in the U.S. and in Canada and to enable oil from the Canadian province of Alberta to reach the world market.
The two leaders announced signing of a trade deal and perimeter security agreement, which would allow easier access to ports and increase harmonization of security checks and procedures at land borders.
“Together, they represent the most significant steps forward in Canada-U.S. cooperation since the North American Free Trade Agreement,” Harper said.
View full post on Trade Agreements Stories
U.S. encourages SAARC but hesitant to get more involved
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The United States encouraged the participating nations of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, also known as SAARC, but Washington had no intentions to increase its own involvement with the association according to one of the top U.S. diplomats.
Addressing journalists at a special briefing at the State Department, Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs said, “We’re an observer country and we welcome that role, but we’re not seeking to enhance our role in any way.”
Assistant Secretary Blake returned from a trip to the Maldives as head of the U.S. observer delegation to the 17th Summit of the SAARC which has eight member nations and nine observers.
The U.S., however, urged the participating South Asian nations to not only cement ties among themselves but also to enlarge cooperation with Central Asian countries to accelerate the building of a New Silk Road.
Assistant Secretary Blake said, “I explained our support for greater regional integration not only within South Asia, but between South and Central Asia and Secretary Clinton’s vision of a New Silk Road linking the economies of South and Central Asia in a web of trade, transit, and energy connections.”
“The SAARC states hope to implement a South Asia free trade agreement by 2016, and there was some progress that was announced during the recent summit,” said Blake, lamenting the fact that the SAARC members were “not ready to endorse proposals to move up the date for SAFTA implementation.”
The SAARC leaders agreed “to finalize a regional railways agreement in the next year and to create an Indian Ocean cargo and ferry service by 2012,” said Assistant Secretary Blake.
The U.S. has enjoyed observer nation status since 2007 in SAARC, which groups Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
View full post on Trade Agreements Stories
Iran, North Korea cloud Obama, Lee interaction with press
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – President Barack Obama on Thursday shelved his policy of diplomatic negotiations as he noted his administration’s goal to make “sure that they (Iranians) pay a price,” while seeking to “isolate” Iran — not only over the alleged assassination plot, but over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism.
Addressing a joint press conference with visiting South Korean president Lee Myung Bak at the White House, Obama refused to say explicitly whether he believed Iran’s leaders knew about a plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, but the Iranians should be held accountable in any event, reiterated Obama.
“Even if at the highest levels there was not detailed operational knowledge, there has to be accountability with respect to anybody in the Iranian government engaging in this kind of activity,” Obama said.
President asserted himself when he replied to one conservative channel correspondent saying, “Well I did not know you were the spokesman for Romney.”
Smiling Obama answered when he was asked if he considered the alleged Iranian assassination plot to be “an act of war.”
The journalist framed his question citing Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney as saying earlier, “what specific steps will you take to hold Iran accountable? Especially when Mitt Romney charged last week, quote, ‘If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that president today.’”
On the recent nod from U.S. Congress for the free trade agreement with Korea, President Lee said he is confident Korean parliament will ratify the deal soon.
“I am confident that the Korea National Assembly will soon ratify this very important agreement in the near future,” Lee said. “It is a win-win agreement that will benefit both of our economies in countless ways.”
Calling the FTA an “historic milestone,” Lee said the countries have set an example of job creation and economic growth through free trade.
Highlighting the ongoing concern in Europe, Lee noted the global economy’s present challenges, saying, “the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement will demonstrate to the world that we can create good quality jobs and stimulate growth through open and fair trade.”
Obama summed up the agreement effect as, “In short, this agreement will boost American exports by up to $11 billion and support some 70,000 American jobs.”
The occasion was also used by Obama to warn North Korea, saying, “If Pyongyang continues to ignore its international obligations, it will invite even more pressure and isolation.”
“If the North abandons its quest for nuclear weapons and moves toward denuclearization, it will enjoy greater security and opportunity for its people,” Obama offered as a choice for North Korea.
View full post on Trade Agreements Stories
Former Mayor Daley joins law firm
Chicago, IL, United States (AHN) – Former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has joined a prominent law firm that will draw on his two decades as the city’s top executive.
Daley, 69, will serve as counsel for Katten Muchin Rosenman, which has offices in the city, as well New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and London.
The firm will use his “vast knowledge, experience and relationships globally to contribute to [its] continued growth,” according to a statement. The Democrat will not be part of work involving the city and public agencies.
Daley served as Cook County state attorney and state senator before becoming mayor. He surprised many when he announced his retirement last September after 22 years in office, the longest of any mayor, including his father. He had a choice of several law firms but opted for Katten, a firm recognized as one of the best for women and gays.
“They have an innovative yet practical approach to helping clients accomplish their goals, and they are expanding globally,” the former mayor said in a statement. “The firm also has a demonstrated commitment to giving back to the community, which is important to me.”
“We are honored that Mayor Daley has chosen to join Katten,” said Vincent Sergi, national managing partner for Katten. “In joining our firm, he clearly recognizes what we have accomplished and that we are poised for significant growth nationally and internationally. His advice and counsel will be invaluable.”
View full post on Economy, Business And Finance Stories
Hispanics criticize Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s illegal immigration law
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – Leaders of the Latin American and U.S. Hispanic communities continued sharp criticisms Friday against a Supreme Court decision that upholds a tough state law against illegal immigration.
They say the ruling on Thursday will lead to discrimination against Hispanic people.
The Arizona law empowers local police to shut down any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants.
The Supreme Court ruling is expected to encourage other states to enact similar laws to ensure employees are Americans.
The Obama administration opposed the Arizona law, saying the state was authorizing itself to set immigration policy that the Constitution reserves to the federal government.
The Supreme Court said Arizona was not setting a new immigration policy, merely enforcing the federal laws that already exist.
“Arizona hopes that its law will result in more effective enforcement of the prohibition on employing unauthorized aliens,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the 5-3 majority.
As a result, “the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law,” he wrote.
Among the first Latin American leaders to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision was Wilbert Bendezu, president of Peru’s Parliament.
He said the Supreme Court’s decision set a “dangerous precedent” that will lead to other laws against immigrants.
Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Mississippi, Ohio and Florida all have either enacted or are considering laws against illegal immigration that closely follow the “Legal Arizona Workers Act.”
Bendezu said the Arizona law gives employers no other choice than to fire workers who lack U.S. government work permits.
He estimated that about 600,000 Peruvians live illegally in the United States.
Other criticism came from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), a civil rights organization for Hispanics.
“Today’s regrettable decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a tortured product of judicial activism responding to perceived political views of the moment,” said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF’s president.
He hinted that the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to approval of Arizona’s S.B. 1070.
The state law authorizes local police to question and arrest anyone if the officers have “probable cause” evidence they are illegally in the United States. The law is awaiting an appeal to the Supreme Court before it can be enforced.
“Laws that encroach on exclusive federal immigration enforcement by mandating or permitting untrained local police officers to engage in racial profiling will find little refuge in today’s decision,” Saenz said. “Wise state and local lawmakers must continue to tread carefully in areas touching on immigration. As has been the case for well over 200 years, federal action remains the sole legitimate avenue to address immigration issues.”
Dissenters on the Supreme Court largely agreed that Arizona lawmakers overstepped their authority with the Legal Arizona Workers Act.
“Either directly or through the uncertainty that it creates, the Arizona statute will impose additional burdens upon lawful employers,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent.
The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Breyer wrote that employers now are likely to “erect ever stronger safeguards against the hiring of unauthorized aliens, without counterbalancing protections against unlawful discrimination.”
The Arizona law also requires employers to check the immigration status of all job applicants using an online federal background check program called E-Verify.
The Supreme Court ruling said E-Verify was “entirely consistent” with federal law.
About 215,000 employers nationwide have enrolled voluntarily in the E-Verify program. South Carolina and Mississippi also require employers to do E-Verify background checks.
Some members of Congress have said recently they plan to introduce bills requiring E-Verify checks nationally.
View full post on All Stories
Document: Obama’s Proposal On Deficit Reduction – Health Care Section
Washington, D.C., United States (KaiserHealth) – President Barack Obama on Wednesday shared his plans to cut the deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years, which, according to a fact sheet distributed by the White House, includes saving $480 billion in health care costs by 2023. Obama proposes holding Medicare cost growth down by strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board and making Medicaid more flexible without using block grants.
Here’s a look at the health care section of the fact sheet, as released by the White House:
DETAILS OF THE PRESIDENT’S FRAMEWORK FOR SHARED PROSPERITY AND SHARED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
4. Health Care
Medicare and Medicaid Savings of $480 Billion by 2023 and At Least an Additional $1 Trillion over the Subsequent Decade, Providing Better Care at Lower Costs:
Building on the Affordable Care Act, the President is proposing additional reforms to Medicare and Medicaid designed to strengthen these critical programs by reducing waste, increasing accountability, promoting efficiency, and improving the quality of care, without shifting the cost of care to our seniors or people with disabilities.
The framework will save $340 billion over ten years and $480 billion by 2023 (including the proposals already included in the President’s Budget). This framework includes the same aggregate savings that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan proposed in his November 2010 plan with Alice Rivlin and an amount sufficient to fully pay to reform the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) physician payment formula while still reducing the deficit.
Over the subsequent decade, the President’s proposal will save well over $1 trillion by further bending the cost curve, doubling the savings from the Affordable Care Act.
The President’s framework offers a stark contrast with the House Republican plan that would increase seniors’ health costs by $6,400 annually starting in 2022, raise health insurance premiums for middle-class Americans and small businesses, cut Federal Medicaid spending by one-third by the end of the decade, and increase the number of uninsured by 50 million.
The President’s framework proposes specific reforms to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid over the long term, including:
Addressing the long-term drivers of Medicare cost growth: The President’s framework would strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the Affordable Care Act. The IPAB has been highlighted by economists and health policy experts as a critical contributor to Medicare’s solvency and sound operations. Under the Affordable Care Act, IPAB analyzes the drivers of excessive and unnecessary Medicare cost growth. When Medicare growth per beneficiary exceeds growth in nominal GDP per capita plus 1 percent, IPAB recommends to Congress policies to reduce the rate of growth to meet that target, while not harming beneficiaries’ access to needed services. Congress must consider IPAB’s recommendations or, if it disagrees, enact policies that achieve equivalent savings. If neither acts, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to develop and implement a proposal to achieve the savings target.
The President’s framework will strengthen IPAB to act as a backstop to the other Medicare reforms by ensuring that Medicare spending growth does not outpace our ability to pay for it over the long run, while improving the program and keeping Medicare beneficiaries’ premium growth under control. Specifically, it would:
Set a new target of Medicare growth per beneficiary growing with GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent. This is consistent both with the reductions in projected Medicare spending since the Affordable Care Act was passed and the additional reforms the President is proposing.
Give IPAB additional tools to improve the quality of care while reducing costs, including allowing it to promote value-based benefit designs that promote proven services like prevention without shifting costs to seniors.
Give IPAB additional enforcement mechanisms such as an automatic sequester as a backstop for IPAB, Congress, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Reforming the Federal-State partnerships to strengthen Medicaid and promote simplicity, efficiency, and accountability: Under current law, States face a patchwork of different Federal payment contributions for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The President’s framework would replace the current complicated Federal matching formulas with a single matching rate for all program spending that rewards States for efficiency and automatically increases if a recession forces enrollment and State costs to rise.
In addition, the President has called on the National Governors Association (NGA) to make recommendations for ways to reform and strengthen Medicaid, and the framework will consider the ideas that its Task Force produces. The President also supports reform of Medicaid to incentivize more efficient, higher quality, care for high-cost beneficiaries, including those who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. These nine million beneficiaries comprise 15 percent of Medicaid enrollment but consume nearly 40 percent of total Medicaid spending.
Improving patient safety: Together with employers, States, hospitals, physicians and nurses, the Administration has launched a new public-private partnership called Partnership for Patients that will help improve the quality, safety and affordability of health care for all Americans. The two goals of this new Partnership are: preventing patients from getting injured or sicker while they are in the hospital and helping patients heal without complication. Achieving the initiative’s goal would mean more than 1.6 million patients will recover from illness without a preventable complication, reducing costs by up to $50 billion in Medicare and billions more in Medicaid over the next 10 years.
Cutting unnecessary prescription drug spending: The framework would limit excessive payments for prescription drugs by leveraging Medicare’s purchasing power – similar to what was called for by the bipartisan Fiscal Commission. It would speed up the availability of generic biologics, and prohibit brand-name companies from entering into “pay for delay” agreements with generic companies. And, it would implement Medicaid management of high prescribers and users of prescription drugs.
Reducing abuse and increasing accountability in Medicaid and Medicare: The framework would clamp down on States’ use of provider taxes to lower their own spending while not providing additional health services through Medicaid; recover erroneous payments from Medicare Advantage; establish upper limits on Medicaid payments for durable medical equipment; and take other actions to improve program integrity.
A major contrast with the House Republican approach. The President’s framework rejects plans that would end Medicare as we know it or transform Medicaid into a dramatically underfunded block grant, putting at serious risk not only seniors but also the most vulnerable children and people with disabilities. Some of the major problems with the House Republican approach include:
The House Republican plan does nothing to reduce health costs. Instead it actually increases costs by doing nothing to reform the way health care is delivered in addition to putting a larger fraction of the burden on beneficiaries and States.
In the first year the Republican plan goes into effect, a typical 65-year-old who becomes eligible for Medicare would pay an extra $6,400 for health care, more than doubling what he or she would pay if the plan were not adopted.
States would get one-third less for Medicaid by 2021, potentially leaving 15 million people without coverage, including seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities, children and pregnant women.
The House Republican plan would no longer guarantee the same level of benefits and choices that seniors have today in Medicare, because the proposal allows private health plans to determine benefits, raise cost sharing, and limit choice of doctors and hospitals.
– Provided by Kaiser Health News.
View full post on All Stories
Ryan Plan vIs ‘Pure Budget Solution, Not A Health Policy Solution’
Washington, D.C., United States (KaiserHealth) – Alec Vachon has his doubts about the workability of a GOP proposal – called premium support – to transform Medicare into a system of limited government help. Vachon, a health care consultant who worked for top Republicans on Capitol Hill for more than a decade, says the idea, put forth last week by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, would be a problem if federal contributions were insufficient to help seniors buy an insurance policy.
Premium support would be a monumental change from the current Medicare entitlement program. The government now pays whatever is necessary to care for seniors and disabled people.
Vachon worked for Republican Bob Dole when he was Senate majority leader and then for the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over health care issues. Vachon left Capitol Hill in 2001 to start Hamilton PPB, where he advises investors. Marilyn Werber Serafini of Kaiser Health News recently spoke with Vachon, and edited excerpts of the interview follow.
Are Republicans moving in the right direction with proposals to reduce spending in Medicare?
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s signature Medicare idea – premium support, [giving individuals] an amount to buy private health insurance, although [annual] increases would be less than medical inflation, thus shifting more costs to beneficiaries – is a pure budget solution, not a health policy solution that would improve the budget. By contrast, a health policy solution would recognize drivers of health costs, especially those generated by government policy, such as tax treatment of health benefits.
Would a premium support approach work?
Ryan would limit the federal contribution for the private purchase of insurance. That works on paper – not sure it would work in the real world if seniors are unable to buy insurance with the available subsidy.
What else could Congress do?
Another approach is an annual global budget for Medicare spending. The next step then is a transparent process to decide what Medicare pays for and what seniors should pay for on their own. Of course, that evokes the charge of rationing by some Republicans. OK, if a private insurance plan does not cover or pay for medical care, even if death is the result, that’s not rationing. If Medicaid does not pay, that’s not rationing. If an individual chooses not to pay, that’s not rationing. Only when Medicare does not pay, that’s rationing.
Medicare is popular with seniors. Does it really need to change?
It’s insanity to have public programs like Medicare and Medicaid that have an unlimited draw on the federal Treasury. Simply put, at a minimum, Medicare and Medicaid shouldn’t be allowed to grow faster than revenues. Social Security and Medicare were meant to be pay-as-you-go programs, and they should become pay-as-you-go again.
How worried should the health care industry be about the big push in Washington to reduce the federal budget deficit?
The overarching investor risk for all health industry sectors is the push for deficit reduction – with potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and biomedical research. By investor, I include first companies looking to spend money to develop new products or services – and looking to [get a return on investment] as well as purchasers of stocks and bonds of health care companies. Regarding Medicare savings, Democrats and Republicans generally take different approaches – Democrats look for more ‘efficient’ care delivery and lower rates; Republicans shift more costs to beneficiaries. But both mean less spending.
You also advocate increasing spending in one area.
Missing from the debate over health care is the importance of biomedical science. For example, there is lots of talk about the costs of chronic disease as a key driver of health care spending. What is chronic disease but acute disease that is not cured, or often even effectively treated? Think diabetes, health disease and the rest. Since Pasteur, we have had a scientific basis for medicine, and although we do not know the result of any single experiment, the more experiments we do, the more knowledge we gain. Only research will cure disease – and more, have a medicine that improves human performance and even adds new functionality.
Will the health care overhaul law survive?
There are three risks to the Affordable Care Act. Congress could repeal or defund it. The courts could strike down provisions of the law. Or, state officials could refuse to implement it. Right now, the Republican Party is trying all three routes. Interestingly, at the state level, although no Republican officeholders appear to be vocal advocates of health reform, many are looking for ways to implement the law. That’s because state officials are much closer to the reality of citizen needs than Congress is.
Marilyn Werber Serafini is the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Robin Toner Distinguished Fellow based at Kaiser Health News. The fellowship honors the late Robin Toner, the New York Times long-time health and politics reporter whose work often framed the public debate on health issues. KHN is an editorially independent news service of the foundation.
– Provided by Kaiser Health News.
View full post on All Stories
Revised estimate shows economy grew faster than thought during end of 2010
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – Economic growth was slightly better toward the end of 2010 than officials had previously estimated, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced Friday.
In its third estimate of the nation’s gross domestic product for the fourth quarter of 2010, the BEA said the economy grew by 3.1 percent from the end of Q3 to the end of Q4.
GDP is a measure of the output of all goods and services produced by labor and property located in the nation.
BEA’s third estimate is based on more complete data than was available when the BEA issued its second estimate of 2.8 percent growth.
“The fourth-quarter acceleration in real GDP primarily reflected a sharp downturn in imports, an
acceleration in PCE, an upturn in residential fixed investment, and an acceleration in exports that were
partly offset by downturns in private inventory investment, in federal government spending, and in state
and local government spending, and a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment,” BEA officials said in a statement.
“Final sales of computers added 0.35 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP
after adding 0.29 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Motor vehicle output subtracted 0.27
percentage point from the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.49 percentage point to the
third-quarter change,” the agency concluded.
View full post on All Stories
Supreme Court hears arguments over Arizona campaign finance law
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The Supreme Court stepped into the controversy of campaign finance again Monday by hearing two cases that could restructure rules on political candidates getting public funding.
Both cases challenge an Arizona law that offers taxpayers’ money to candidates who agree to reject private funding for their campaigns. The law also allows publicly funded candidates to match the campaign spending of their privately funded opponents.
Some candidates for state office and a political action committee argue the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech.
During the hearing Monday, the nine justices seemed to split among conservatives who are skeptical of the Arizona law and liberals who favored it.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said, “I think the purpose of this law is to prevent corruption.”
The Supreme Court has ruled previously that preventing corruption is a valid reason for upholding state laws.
However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito appeared to be bothered by a provision in the law matching public funding of some candidates with private donations of their opponents. He wondered whether a lump sum payment might be a better option to avoid creating a disincentive for campaign contributions.
The last time a campaign finance dispute arose before the Supreme Court, a majority of the justices ruled in 2010 that there are no limits on how much corporations and unions can donate to candidates.
The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission drew immediate criticism from Democrats in Congress. Even President Obama criticized the Supreme Court for its decision during his State of the Union address.
They said the ruling would give corporations greater influence over who gets elected.
Democrats said the ruling skewed the election results against them last November, turning over the majority in Congress to Republicans.
Arizona adopted its law in 1998 in response to campaign finance scandals, including the “AzScam.” Some state lawmakers were caught accepting bribes to support gambling legislation.
The grassroots effort to amend Arizona’s campaign laws put no limits on private donations. It merely says that any private donations will be matched by public funds among candidates who forgo contributions from corporations, unions or other special interest groups.
“The law simply ensures that, when a candidate relying on private money speaks, the publicly financed candidate has the money to answer,” said Charles Fried, the former U.S. solicitor general under the Reagan administration, in a recent editorial.
A group of 14 former U.S. senators, governors and other political officials issued a statement supporting the Arizona law, saying it “adds voices to the political forum.”
The Arizona law is at the forefront of a wave of state campaign finance reform laws sweeping the nation, meaning the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case could have a widespread effect.
Some legal analysts say the court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett is likely to follow a course of action similar to its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by striking down the law.
So far, a slim majority of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has ruled consistently against campaign finance restrictions.
The Supreme Court already blocked enforcement of the Arizona law last June before agreeing to hear the dispute Monday.
A statement from the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates campaign finance restrictions, said the Supreme Court is “poised to issue a ruling that could make it harder for ordinary citizens to compete with big money in our democracy.”
Arizona argues in its legal briefs that their law “combats corruption and promotes free speech by providing an independent funding source for those candidates willing to abide by several restrictions.”
The state won to keep its law in one appeal before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
The state’s opponents invoked a 2008 Supreme Court ruling against the “Millionaire’s Amendment” in federal election law. The amendment increased publicly-funded contribution limits for candidates running against wealthier opponents.
However, the Supreme Court said the increased public funding interferes with the political free speech of wealthy candidates.
The Ninth Circuit said the Arizona law presents a different issue.
The Millionaire’s Amendment lumps candidates together based on how much money they earn, whereas the Arizona law distinguishes between candidates based on whether they agree to accept public funding, the Ninth Circuit said.
Opponents of the Arizona law include Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Gun Owners of America and about a dozen other organizations. They say Arizona should get out of the business of subsidiziing political candidates.
The state law discourages privately-funded candidates from spending money to inform voters about their political opinions, thereby inhibiting First Amendment free speech, according to opponents. They also say its effectiveness in stopping dirty money in politics is too small to be worthwhile.
Their Supreme Court brief says, “Public financing in Arizona’s matching funds systems forces a yoke around the neck of traditionally funded candidates.”
The paired cases are McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
View full post on All Stories
Women see rays of hope globally especially in post-Taliban era Afghanistan
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – On the one hundredth anniversary of International Women’s Day on March 8, top diplomat of the United States hosted the 2011 International Women of Courage Awards at the Department of State with a special guest, First Lady Michelle Obama.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was joined in the Dean Acheson Auditorium by Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, along with Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein; Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard; Kyrgyzstan President Rosa Otunbayeva; and Journalist and Publisher of Bebela Henriette Ekwe Ebongo.
Clinton called Blankfein, “our token man,” who eulogized Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Women, a $100 million investment, launched three years ago to provide business and management education to women entrepreneurs.
“Our investment in women is anchored in ours and the World Bank’s research that showed how investing in women can have a real impact on GDP growth, particularly in developing economies,” he said, adding, “Today, we’re fortunate to be joined by two graduates, Divya Keshav from India and Christine Tour from Liberia.”
Stressing that both demonstrate the power of investing in women, Blankfein said, “Divya empowers women by hiring them as machine operators at her label factory and providing opportunities for promotion. Christine, against all odds, returned to Liberia after the civil war to train women and create jobs at her beauty salon.”
Later addressing a select audience of dignitaries, Maria Bashir, prosecutor general from Herat Province in Afghanistan, stated about the condition of Afghan women in a post-Taliban era.
Bashir noted that “the Government of Afghanistan relatively has been trying to help the plight and condition of the Afghan women,” cautioning that, “Unfortunately, what a lot of promises that were given, all of them have not been fulfilled, either by the international community or by the Afghan Government.”
On the subject of withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan, Bashir said, “We are talking about pulling or withdrawal of the NATO forces,” adding, “The Afghan women are alarmed and they all have some kind of concerns.”
In her address, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Verveer said, “We are deeply concerned about the situation for women in Iran, which manifests itself every day,” regretting that, We haven’t been able to have any of those kinds of direct links except through others who are working there.”
The International Women’s Day honors a historic movement started by New York garment workers, who were fed up with low wages and poor working conditions.  
View full post on All Stories
Day Trading- Eurozone service sector shrinks, raising recession fears
- Automated Forex Trading with the Best Software can Produce Huge Returns if Perfected
- U.S. markets quiet as investors worry about Greece
- Odyssey Marine Exploration has to give shipwreck treasure back to Spain
- Odyssey Marine Exploration has to give shipwreck treasure back to Spain
- Fuji recalls women’s cruiser bicycles over fall hazard
- Get fully automated day trading system
- Wal-Mart reports more sales but lower Q4 profits
- SEC Warns Top Banker of Charges Over Magnetar Deal
- Taco Bell to launch new Dorito shells
- Forex
- Getting Started In Forex – The Proven Best Strategy For Getting Started In Forex
- Forex Secrets – Delusion Number 2 – Who Prompts Forex Quotation to Traders?
- Summary Box: Stocks fall as dollar jumps
- Ava Forex Broker-Providing An Apparent Platform To Trade For Both Traders And Investors
- Forex Trading Strategies – How to Be a Super Successful Forex Trader! AAA+++
- Fed stands pat on interest rates and bond purchases
- Managed Foreign Exchange – Tips And Tricks to Manage Your Forex Account
- Car sales in Philippines jump 29 percent
- Suicide Won’t End Madoff Suits
- What to Look for in Opening a Free Forex Account
-
- Investors
- Comparison Shopping for Personal Loans
- Comparison Shopping for Personal Loans
- Bank of America repurchases $2.5 billion debt from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in settlement
- Bank of America repurchases $2.5 billion debt from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in settlement
- Illinois Firm Recalls Raw and Ready-To-Eat Sausage Products Due To Possible Adulteration
- DeLisha Milton-Jones shines as Sparks topple Liberty in historic rematch
- June 20, 2011: Braves 2* vs. Blue Jays 0 (MLB)
- Debt Consolidation – Savior in Debt Crisis
- Government Check List for Starting a Business
- Rohingyas in Malaysia seek education, opportunities
- Eco friendly Business
- Stella McCartney’s sunglasses are eco-friendly
- Climate-vulnerable countries to seek help from rich nations
- Bangladesh, India vulnerable to climate change
- Disease concerns as flash floods hit Kenyan coastal area
- Nalgae leaves 18 dead in the Philippines
- Rising sea level could wipe out California’s billion-dollar beaches
- Two million hit by floods in Sindh Province
- Drought – the view from the ground
- British Columbia sends more firefighters to Ontario
- Long and intense drought hurting 14 states
