TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
Oklahoma’s U.S. senators support extending surveillance programs to allow more time for debate
“Ahead of a rare Sunday night session in the U.S. Senate, top leaders of the American Civil Liberities Union and the Tea Party Patriots said Friday the law allowing the collection of bulk telephone data should be allowed to expire this weekend. Jenny Beth Martin, president of the Tea Party Patriots, told reporters that the collection of so-called “metadata” regarding Americans’ telephone calls sounded harmless until one considered how much tracking of locations and movement it allowed. “It is violating our freedom and the Bill of Rights,” Martin said. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to collect basic information about calls, will expire Sunday night unless the Senate does something to extend it, even temporarily. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, blocked an extension of the law before Memorial Day and is expected to stage another battle on Sunday…”
http://newsok.com/oklahomas-u.s.-senators-support-extending-surveillance-programs-to-allow-more-time-for-debate/article/5423680
Alex Abdo and Jenny Beth Martin: End the NSA dragnet on world surveillance
“Around 1:30am Saturday, there was a seismic shift in the US Congress. As the Senate deadlocked over what to do about several expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, it became clear that political momentum had moved away from surveillance and secrecy toward freedom and privacy. In a rare and theatrical overnight session, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried and failed to reauthorise or even briefly extend the Patriot Act’s surveillance powers before senators left Washington for their weeklong holiday break. At every turn, he was blocked by a bipartisan group of civil libertarians and surveillance skeptics led by presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, and Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon. Their main target was Section 215, which the government argues allows the National Security Agency to collect, store and analyse Americans’ phone records and other intimate information in bulk. “This is a debate about whether a warrant with a single name of a single company can be used to collect all of the phone records of all of the people in our country,” Paul said from the floor. “Our forefathers would be aghast.” He was right, and we agree, which is why the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tea Party Patriots are pushing senators who are uneasy with NSA dragnet spying to hold the line and, in the absence of far-reaching reform, allow the provisions to expire on June 1. McConnell has already promised that he will try again on Sunday to keep the surveillance status quo, and his allies will probably use scare-tactics to help him get his way. But would-be reformers should take comfort in the fact that the public and the courts are on their side. By a nearly 2-to-1 margin across all ages, ideologies and political parties, Americans believe that the Patriot Act should be scaled back to limit government surveillance and protect Americans’ privacy, according to recent ACLU polling…”
http://gulftoday.ae/portal/ac5858cd-bbfe-4eb3-b6e7-861463c169d9.aspx
Rollback of U.S. spy powers would mark post-9/11 watershed
“…Groups as diverse as the left-leaning ACLU and the conservative Tea Party Patriots argue the telephone data program is unconstitutionally broad, targeting the communications of millions of innocent Americans…”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/30/us-usa-security-surveillance-idUSKBN0OF05L20150530
NSA’s bulk collection of phone records is set to end today as Rand Paul vows to block reform of the Patriot Act
“…Groups as diverse as the left-leaning ACLU and the conservative Tea Party Patriots argue the telephone data program is unconstitutionally broad, targeting the communications of millions of innocent Americans…”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103988/Rollback-U-S-spy-powers-mark-post-9-11-watershed.html
ACLU, Tea Party Patriots Form Alliance In Debate Over Patriot Act Provisions
http://progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2015/05/29/aclu-tea-party-patriots-form-alliance-debate-over-patriot-act
Their View: It’s time to end the NSA dragnet (Op-ed)
http://www.centredaily.com/2015/05/30/4772359/their-view-its-time-to-end-the.html
HEALTHCARE:
Experts see big price hikes for Obamacare
Premiums could rise more sharply in 2016.
“The cost of Obamacare could rise for millions of Americans next year, with one insurer proposing a 50 percent hike in premiums, fueling the controversy about just how “affordable” the Affordable Care Act really is. The eye-popping 50 percent hike by New Mexico insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield is an outlier, and state officials may not allow it to go through. But health insurance experts are predicting that premiums will rise more significantly in 2016 than in the first two years of Obamacare exchange coverage. In 2015, for example, premiums increased by an average of 5.4 percent, according to PwC’s Health Research Institute. The premium increases come at a tenuous time for Obamacare, which remains under fire from a Republican Congress that wants to repeal the law, while a Supreme Court ruling on federal subsidies for the health insurance looms in June as well. “Insurers seem to be reporting higher trend, which means they are seeing bigger increases in health care costs,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special initiatives at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “But really what’s going on here is they now have data showing what the risk pool looks like. Initially in 2014 they were completely guessing about who was going to enroll and how much health care they were going to use.” Many plans haven’t yet made public their proposed rates; Monday is the deadline for publishing and providing an explanation for rate hikes of at least 10 percent. None announced so far is as dramatic as the New Mexico plan, although a few others are also quite sharp. The Blues in Maryland and Tennessee, both with the largest market share on the exchanges in their states, are seeking increases of more than 30 percent. In Oregon, Moda Health Plan — which attracted more than 40 percent of exchange customers in 2015, despite competing against a dozen other health plans — is seeking average rate increases of 25 percent. Other plans released to date — including some in these four states — are seeking far more modest increases. The reasons for the rising premiums are complex. Part of it, as Levitt noted, is simply that the carriers know a lot more about the health status and health care patterns of their new customers. Part of it’s rising drug prices. And the planned phasing out of certain ACA programs that were designed to reduce risk for insurers who entered the untested Obamacare marketplaces, are also causing carriers to price cautiously…”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428.html
Montana health insurers say marketplace rate hikes likely
“Health insurers selling individual policies on Montana’s Affordable Care Act marketplace say rate increases are likely next year after they suffered losses they attribute in part to initial underestimates of the costs of the new business. Companies are now filing requests for higher rates, The Missoulian (http://tinyurl.com/o2ww2nb) newspaper reported. Montana’s insurance regulator, state Auditor Monica Lindeen, said Friday that her office has just begun reviewing the requests and that she’ll likely object to parts of the increases. She added that it’s possible insurers are overestimating expected costs or other factors. “There are a lot of different issues on why these rate increases may be so high,” Lindeen said. “We’re hoping through our process we can decrease the increases.” Individuals started buying policies on the marketplace, choosing among four companies, in late 2013. Montana and other states set up online marketplaces where consumers can compare prices and coverage and in some cases get federal subsidies. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies couldn’t refuse anyone who wanted to buy or take into account pre-existing health conditions in setting prices. Insurers said Friday that costs for their new customers came in higher than expected in 2014, citing as key factors drug prices and high-cost single patients. “What we’re seeing across the country is that nearly all health insurers, large and small, are losing money in the individual marketplace,” said Todd Lovshin, vice president and Montana regional director for PacificSource, which offers policies on Montana’s marketplace….”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/30/montana-health-insurers-say-marketplace-rate-hikes/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
CA LEGISLATURE OFFERS $1 BILLION TO EXTEND OBAMACARE TO ILLEGAL ALIENS
“The California Senate’s Appropriations Committee passed SB 4 to give health care to all illegal/undocumented aliens. Breitbart News estimates that based on the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projections, SB 4 will cost at least $1 billion, and the cost will undoubtedly go much higher over time. With the state’s fiscal year winding down through June 30th, Sacramento politicians are furiously competing to spend a piece of the state’s $3 billion in “surplus” cash. On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee only rejected about a quarter of the 283 active bills, while the Assembly committee rejected only a third of their 421 bills. But in a major move, the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee amended and passed SB 4 on a 5-2 party line vote. The original “Bill Summary” said, “SB 4 would extend Medi-Cal eligibility to individuals who would otherwise be eligible, except for their immigration status.” The amended bill requires the state Health and Human Services agency to apply for federal authorization to offer “unsubsidized” healthcare coverage through California’s Obamacare exchange called Covered California. Although the amendment’s author, Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), described the legislation as a limited enrollment healthcare program that is not a state “entitlement,” the bill directly extends free Medi-Cal access to those under the age of 19 and provides California taxpayer-funded free or highly subsidized coverage equivalent to Medi-Cal. Sen. Lara told the LA Times, “Today’s vote represents a historic step forward on the path towards achieving health for all.” He added, “Ensuring that everyone in California is healthy is what’s right for our state.” But after California adopted Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in 2013, Medi-Cal already grew 33 percent to 12.2 million beneficiaries. Because former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder estimated Medicaid fraud was running at 20 percent, and the Office of Inspector General says California is the worst state, Democrat legislators emphasize that SB 4 will require higher-income illegal aliens to buy insurance from Covered California and pay for the premiums. But the statistics regarding illegal/undocumented aliens’ willingness to comply with U.S. laws are shockingly poor. The Executive Office for Immigration Review reported that from 2003 to 2012, the percentage of all aliens that failed to show up for their immigration hearing after being released on their own recognizance averaged about 30 percent. But in the last year, the non-compliance rate skyrocketed to over 90 percent…”
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/05/30/ca-legislature-offers-1-billion-to-extend-obamacare-to-illegal-aliens/
Obamacare’s $273 Billion Bonanza for Paper Pushers
“Since Obamacare took effect, roughly 16.5 million more people have gained health insurance. And while the health care law is objectively succeeding in its key goal of expanding access to coverage to millions of Americans, those gains come with enormous costs to taxpayers — including inordinately steep ongoing administrative costs, according to a new study. The analysis, published in Health Affairs this week, found that Obamacare will add about $273.6 billion in administrative costs between 2014 and 2022, including $172.2 billion in higher private insurance overhead — bringing the total spent on administering government health programs and private insurance overhead to nealry $2.76 trillion for that period. The authors of the study, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, professors at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers at Harvard Medical School, attribute the soaring overhead to rising enrollment in private plans, as well as the law’s Medicaid expansion. This year 9.6 million people signed up for plans on the state and federal exchanges. The study also attributes the uptick in overhead to the high cost of setting up and running the exchanges, which are essentially brokers between the government and private health plans. In comparison, the federal government spends just 2 percent in overhead costs on its traditional Medicare program. The latest estimate breaks down to about $1,375 in extra administrative costs per newly insured person per year, according to the report. That’s “over and above what would have been expected had the law not been enacted,” Himmelstein wrote on the Health Affairs blog. Some of the overhead will be added to Medicare and Medicaid programs, but most of it—about $172.2 billion—will come from private insurance. The researchers acknowledge that expanding access to health coverage for tens of millions of Americans — as Obamacare was intended to do — comes at a high price, but they say that soaring administrative costs are avoidable. “Insuring 25 million additional Americans, as the [Congressional Budget Office] projects the ACA will do, is surely worthwhile. But the administrative cost of doing so seems awfully steep, particularly when much cheaper alternatives are available,” the report says. The researchers point out that Medicare Advantage, which also involves federal reimbursement to private insurers, also had “bloated administrative costs,” though in that case the overhead averaged 13.7 percent in 2011, or about $1,355 per enrollee. “But rather than learn from that mistake, both Democrats and Republicans seem intent on tossing more federal dollars to private insurers,” they wrote. In the report, the researchers push for adopting a universal single-payer system, saying that it would significantly scale back on administrative costs. Of course, adopting a single-payer model in the U.S. in this political environment is not likely to happen anytime soon. Last summer, an effort by progressive lawmakers in Vermont to craft the first single-payer model in the country died off when liberal Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, a longtime leader of the movement, realized it would cost his state more than it could afford….”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/28/Obamacare-s-273-Billion-Bonanza-Paper-Pushers
Early clues to ObamaCare’s impact
“Five years after the passage of ObamaCare, the impact of the law on the nation’s healthcare system is beginning to come into focus. There is still plenty of uncertainty about the law’s long-term effects, with key provisions — most notably the employer mandate to provide insurance — not yet in effect. But new data is providing an early glimpse of how President Obama’s signature law is reshaping the healthcare marketplace, with millions of people added to the insurance rolls and a slew of new regulatory requirements now in effect. “For us, everything has changed,” said Clare Krusing, spokeswoman for the trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans. The success of the law is the subject of fierce debate between the two parties. While one of the White House’s favorite lines is “the Affordable Care Act is working,” Republicans say the law is an unmitigated disaster that should be repealed. Here are the some of the most tangible changes resulting from ObamaCare so far. 17 million people newly insured – Nearly 22.8 million people have purchased insurance through ObamaCare, according to a national study by RAND Corp. released earlier this month, with 17 million enrolling in a plan for first time. The figures put the Obama administration on track to meet its goal of reducing the uninsured population by 19 million in 2015, with another two months left for new sign-ups this year. The biggest groups of enrollees have been young people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people living in poorer and rural areas, according to recent data from an analysis by Enroll America and Civis. Much of the expansion can be credited to ObamaCare tax subsidies, which about 80 percent of customers qualify for. So far, more than $10 billion has gone out to help people afford their care. Upticks in premiums – Premium prices for health insurance are increasing, though unevenly, across states. The insurance industry is adjusting to hundreds of new ObamaCare regulations, including the minimum benefit requirements and the ban on rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. On the whole, the new requirements have made coverage more expensive, experts say. As this year’s rating season begins, the biggest insurers in several states — including New Mexico, Tennessee and Maryland — have proposed rate hikes all exceeding 25 percent. All have cited the costs of covering people under ObamaCare. Still, Krusing, from the health insurers trade group, argues that it’s almost impossible to make a blanket statement that ObamaCare is driving up premiums across the board. “It’s more complex than that,” she said, pointing to the rising cost of prescription drugs and the increased number of provider consolidations, which decreases competition. “If you want to understand the premium story, you have to look at factors and local dynamics,” she said….”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243513-early-clues-to-obamacares-impact
Obamacare ruling a time bomb for Democrats?
“Democrats and Republicans are sitting on the edge of their seats, waiting to see what the Supreme Court will decide in King v. Burwell, the looming decision about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as it has come to be known. If the Supreme Court agrees with the challenge, an estimated 13 million people will lose their federal health insurance subsidies. The plaintiffs have argued that based on the literal reading of the legislation, the government is only supposed to provide citizens with subsidies in states that set up their own health care exchanges (a total of 16 states). The sentence in the law upon which their claim is based, The New York Times reported, was based on a sloppy error made during the drafting process. Regardless, the plaintiffs argue that in states where residents rely on federal subsidies (34 altogether), the law does not provide for subsidies…”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/31/opinions/zelizer-obamacare-supreme-court-democrats/
IMMIGRATION:
What’s Obama’s Plan C for Immigration?
“What a bad week it was for President Obama’s immigration policies, and for millions living in limbo in the United States. A federal appeals panel swatted down Mr. Obama’s latest executive actions to limit deportations — key elements of his strategy to mend a broken immigration system through administrative fixes after a Republican House strangled full-scale legislative reform. It was the second time Republican-appointed judges, with partisan efficiency, picked apart what the administration said was a rock-solid legal argument for using its discretion to protect more than four million people from being deported. This is the month that these millions were supposed to begin lining up to tell the authorities: Here we are, sign us up. But because 26 states sued to block Mr. Obama’s plans, the immigrants, instead of receiving permission to legally stay and work, are left holding nothing but unmet promises, their lives as anxious and uncertain as ever. So what is Plan C? The administration faces a tangle of options. It says it still expects to win its case, probably not with the district judge, whose decision included many pages of railing against Obama “lawlessness,” but maybe in the Republican-dominated Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or in the Supreme Court. This litigation’s journey will last well into next year, possibly beyond. What lies over that horizon, who knows. While it waits and frets, the administration still has an obligation not to quit. Mr. Obama should follow through on his oft-stated commitment to do all he can to make the immigration system more humane. This means making sure that his original 2012 program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which shields immigrants brought here illegally as children, works as planned. It has not been blocked by any court, and many young people — perhaps 90,000 a year — are still free to make use of it as they reach the age of eligibility. The administration’s revised enforcement priorities — in line with Mr. Obama’s promise to focus on deporting serious criminals, not workers and parents who pose no threat — still need to be honored…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/opinion/whats-obamas-plan-c-for-immigration.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Immigration Reform News: What’s Next for Obama Administration After Immigration Setback as Gov. Jeb Bush Defends His Immigration Stance
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/56681/20150531/immigration-reform-news-whats-next-for-obama-administration-after-immigration-setback-as-gov-jeb-bush-defends-his-immigration-stance.htm
Immigration Reform 2015: Supreme Court Immigrant Cases Could Settle Questions Unaddressed By Congress, Experts Say
“The Supreme Court could soon decide two major issues on legal rights for undocumented immigrants. At stake is the ability for immigrants living illegally in the U.S. to come out of the shadows, earn more money to support their families, and have political power and representation in the government. One of these two cases concerns the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration that defer deportations and extend work permits to millions of undocumented immigrants, which could go before the Supreme Court if a lower court continues to block its implementation. The other case, which justices announced this week, is a challenge to voter redistricting rules that could exclude undocumented immigrants from population counts. Some legal experts say there isn’t a clear litmus test for which direction the current justices would sway in immigrant rights cases. But many immigrant advocates and attorneys agree that the Obama administration legally issued the actions related to how it would enforce immigration law. For that reason, the Supreme Court is likely to look favorably on Obama’s measure, while the just as critical voting districts decision will be based on a lesser explored legal standard, the experts said. “[The Supreme Court] is certainly a better venue than the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Brett Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, referring to the court currently reviewing Obama’s executive action on immigration. “In the end, the Supreme Court is going to be the ultimate decider, and I think they [the administration] feel that’s their best strategy.”…”
http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2015-supreme-court-immigrant-cases-could-settle-questions-1942301
Texas v U.S. (the Immigration Case) and the Administrative State
“In Texas v U.S.,decided last Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen’s injunction against the implementation of the Administration’s effort to rewrite immigration law to legitimate the status of millions of illegal immigrants. The administration will not appeal to the Supreme Court, so the merits of the case will well be argued in July. The result was not a surprise. As noted in an earlier post, Judge Hanen wrote a good opinion. Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith buttressed the decision with his own solid analysis, joined by Jennifer Elrod. In fairness, though, attention must also be paid to the dissent by Judge Stephen Higginson, which articulately laid out the case for the Administration. Smith was a Reagan appointee; Bush II gave us Elrod; Obama named Higginson. All three have elite academic credentials (Harvard and Yale Law) and distinguished legal careers. From a perspective of legal pedagogy, the case is a fine exposition of some complex areas of administrative law. However, that strength, that excellence as a matter of legal pedagogy, is also the case’s weakness, in that it contains little hint of the larger and more significant context. Texas v U.S. is only one facet of the growing crisis of the administrative state. The President and his party, grown weary of an inability to persuade Congress to acquiesce in their preferred policies or to get the people to elect a more compliant Congress, are pushing their preferred programs on every front, exploiting every ounce of statutory ambiguity and every inch of administrative discretion in the process. In the course of this, different interests that combine in the governing coalition have been allotted different agencies, a semi-feudal system in which the ruler doles out fiefs to his supporters. Even as Homeland Security is remaking a significant part of the nation’s immigration policies, the EPA is revamping its electric grid and asserting power over every mud puddle, the Department of Education is using vague concepts of sexual harassment to upheave universities, and the National Labor Relations Board and Department of Labor dive even deeper in the unions’ pocket than usual. The Internal Revenue Service used its enforcement authority to suppress conservative non-profit organizations and influence the last election while abuse of non-profit status by liberals is so common as to go unremarked. Viz, John Podesta’s hops between his charity and the White House, and, of course, the Clinton Foundation…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvdelong/2015/05/30/texas-v-u-s-the-immigration-case-and-the-administrative-state/
How U.S. Court Ruling on Immigration Reforms Affects H-1B Holders
“Does this week’s federal court ruling upholding a stay on some of President Barack Obama’s immigration reform plans affect changes for those on high-skilled worker visas in the United States? The short answer is no. The court’s decision stops the Obama administration from proceeding with its plan to allow more than four million people residing in the country illegally to apply for deferred deportation and work authorizations, among other benefits. The administration says it will continue to pursue a separate legal appeal to try to move forward with the plans. Tuesday’s ruling though will not affect initiatives for skilled workers, because the lawsuit only pertained to the program that shielded millions from deportation, said Scott J. FitzGerald, a partner at U.S.-based international law firm Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP. The president in November bypassed Congress to unveil the immigration reforms. The changes included allowing the spouses of certain H-1B visa holders to work in the U.S., reducing the time taken to issue green cards and issuing guidelines on how to successfully apply for an L-1 visa used by employers for intra-company employee transfers. The president’s basket of executive actions was welcomed by India’s outsourcing technology industry, which earns billions of dollars sending Indian engineers and programmers to the U.S. and has been demanding America raise the ceiling on the number of skilled-worker visas it issues every year. Some of the measures announced under the reforms have already been rolled out. A rule that allows people with H-4, dependent-spouse visas with partners seeking employment-based, permanent residence status, to work in the U.S., came into effect earlier this week. In April, a group of technology workers under the banner Save Jobs, USA, filed a preliminary injunction in a federal court in Columbia seeking to block the new rule that allows H-4 spouses to work in the U.S. The lawsuit alleged that the U.S. department of labor has no statutory authority to allow foreigners to work on H-4 visas and has circumvented the rules. The court denied the motion earlier this week…”
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/05/29/how-u-s-court-ruling-on-immigration-reforms-affects-h1-b-holders/
Facial recognition a new tool for tightening border security
“Facial recognition technology is the Department of Homeland Security’s new tool for tightening border security. It’s getting a three-month tryout at a major airport. Kris Van Cleave reports.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/facial-recognition-a-new-tool-for-tightening-border-security-2/
Hawaii officials welcome advanced immigration screening
“Hawaii officials are welcoming news that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security aims to set up immigration and customs stations to screen Japanese passengers before they arrive in the U.S. The department said Friday it will begin negotiations to expand preclearance operations to 10 new foreign airports, including Narita International Airport outside Tokyo. The program allows Customs and Border Protection officers stationed abroad to decide whether to admit passengers and their belongings to the U.S. before they leave a foreign port. Hawaii Tourism Authority CEO George Szigeti says the program would reduce the number of visitors having to go through customs in Honolulu and save Japanese travelers time. U.S. Sens. Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz both issued statements welcoming the news…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/29/hawaii-officials-welcome-advanced-immigration-scre/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Boston helps immigrants prep for Obama’s order
“The city of Boston has launched a program to help illegal immigrants apply for protection under President Obama’s sweeping reform — even as a federal court has thrown the executive orders into legal limbo. “We’re expecting that either the court’s going to make a ruling or something’s going to happen where we’re going to be working with undocumented people and help them become citizens,” Mayor Martin J. Walsh said. “This is really giving people some information on this once it happens.” A clinic held yesterday by the Mayor’s Office of New Bostonians at Mario Umana Academy in East Boston saw hundreds of undocumented immigrants come for information and an informal screening process. “It’s a lot of work from (the beginning) to applying, so we wanted to make sure people are prepared,” said Alejandra St. Guillen, director of the Office of New Bostonians. She said about 300 people came looking for help. Known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, Obama’s immigration reform was frozen by a federal judge last week after 26 states sued, contesting the president’s ability to allow undocumented parents of children born in the United States protection from deportation, as well as his expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which offers protections to immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. An appeal of the order will be heard by a federal appeals court in July. “I’m here to help others like my parents, who could benefit from these programs. People don’t have the information, people need to be guided,” said Cesar Boc, who volunteered at the clinic. Boc came to the U.S. when he was 11, and was included in the first DACA executive order in 2012. Boc said his parents will likely be eligible for DAPA when it becomes an option. “It just goes to the dignity of a human person, that all of us are human beings and all of us need to live in a just society,” he said. The event was held using $15,000 in private donations. A coalition of local business advocates last week backed the city’s initiative, citing the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that the executive action would increase Massachusetts’ GDP by $2.4 billion to $5.6 billion over the next decade…”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/05/boston_helps_immigrants_prep_for_obamas_order
Ann Coulter: With amnesty, elites conspire against the middle class
http://nypost.com/2015/05/31/ann-coulter-elites-conspire-against-the-middle-class/
Chuck Todd Acts Indignant to Claim Dems Want Amnesty to Win Elections
“During an interview with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd appeared visibly shocked when his guest argued that Democrats support amnesty because “they can win more elections.”
http://cnsnews.com/video/chuck-todd-acts-indignant-claim-dems-want-amnesty-win-elections
Jeb Bush on immigration reform, Social Security
“Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is considering a bid for the Republican nomination for president, talks about his proposals for how to reform immigration and Social Security.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/jeb-bush-on-immigration-reform-social-security/
Lindsey Graham ‘leans in’ on immigration reform
“As the executive director of pro-immigration reform group America’s Voice, Frank Sharry has pushed politicians for years to “lean in” on immigration. He says it worked with U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) in 2008 and with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in 2010. But the most unlikely beneficiary of the so-called leaning in, Sharry says, was Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) last year. “How did he do it? He didn’t do it by saying I’m going to change my position. He did it by explaining his position,” Sharry told Fusion. “You win by leaning into the issue,” Sharry told Fusion. “I think Lindsey Graham is the Republican version of that.” “The future of the GOP is at risk,” he added. “And he’s carrying the mine, saying, ‘Hey, fellas. We’re going to get our clocks cleaned unless we get right on this issue.’” On Monday, Graham is announcing a new candidacy — he will enter his name into the ballooning pool of Republican candidates seeking to become the country’s next president. And judging from his presidential preparations so far, he’ll often be out on an island on an issue of rising importance among the Republican primary electorate. Out on the trail so far, Graham has continued to pronounce a full-throated support of a comprehensive legislative solution to reform the nation’s immigration laws. He helped spearhead the reform effort in the Senate in 2013 as part of the “gang of eight,” which included fellow Republican candidate and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida)…”
http://fusion.net/story/141913/lindsey-graham-immigration/
JEB BUSH: GOP MUST ‘REACH OUT’ TO LATINOS WITH ‘HOPEFUL MESSAGE’
“Saying he believes Republicans can win the White House in 2016 “with a hopeful, optimistic message,” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush came out in defense of the PATRIOT Act, currently under debate in Congress, according to Knox News: “We need to protect the homeland. ThePATRIOT Act has been a device, along with other strategies, that have kept us safe. There is not a single shred of evidence that anyone’s civil liberties have been violated. Why would we change something that has been working?” Bush also criticized Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, on foreign policy. “We see the consequences of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy. And yes, it is the Clinton foreign policy. She’ll try to do the Heisman on it but she was secretary of state for four long years. We’re seeing the world unraveling because America is not there.”…”
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/05/31/jeb-bush-gop-must-reach-out-to-latinos-with-hopeful-message/
SPENDING/BUDGET/ECONOMY:
Economy is Weak, Stocks Are In A Bubble, And Washington Must Change Course
“The strength or weakness of the U.S. economy is measured each quarter by its GDP. About 30 days after each calendar quarter the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) releases its report on how the economy performed during the previous quarter. That’s known as the first report. About 30 days later, the BEA issues a revision, known as the second report. Thirty days later, the BEA issues its third and final report on GDP which is the one logged into the public record. The reason for the three releases is that additional information is obtained each time and the report’s accuracy is improved. The first release for the first quarter 2015 indicated that the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 0.2%. The second release which was issued on May 29th revised this lower to a negative 0.7%. The third and final release will come at the end of June. In any event, the economy is slow – actually contracting, which is never a good thing for stock prices, jobs, or much else really. If the economy were to contract during the second quarter we would officially be in recession. What’s the cause of the economic contraction? Some blame the weather. Others point to the West Coast port strike. Perhaps it’s partly due to the rising dollar which reduces U.S. exports. Still others say that Washington is to blame. This last item centers on fiscal policy (i.e. tax policy and regulations) which has stifled small businesses, long considered to be the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Whatever the cause, the U.S. economy is and has been slow, since the Great Recession ended in June 2009. Clearly, the extended run up in the stock market, which long-term requires a healthy economy for strong profits, is in the early to mid-stage of a bubble. This is evidenced by a reading of 126.8% in the “total market cap to GDP” ratio (100% is fairly valued)…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/05/30/economy-is-weak-stocks-are-in-a-bubble-and-washington-must-change-course/
Obama’s trade agenda faces tougher odds heading into House
“After several near death experiences in the Senate, the trade agenda that President Barack Obama is pushing as a second term capstone faces its biggest hurdle yet in the more polarized House. Anti-trade forces have struggled to ignite public outrage over Obama’s bid to enact new free-trade agreements, but Democratic opposition in Congress remains widespread. The outcome may turn on Republicans’ willingness to hand the president a major win in his final years in office. Underscoring the difficulties, House leaders are looking at the second or third week of June to schedule a vote, even though House members return from recess on Monday. “The business of bill passing is a messy, sausage-making process. It was in the Senate, and it certainly will be in the House,” White House communications director Jen Psaki said in an interview. “There will be many moments where there will be difficult issues. We have our eyes wide open with that.” At issue is legislation that would give Obama parameters for the trade deals he negotiates but also speed up congressional review of the final agreements by giving lawmakers the right to approve or reject deals, but not change them. Obama is seeking this “fast track” authority to complete a 12-nation Trans-Pacific trade deal that spans the Pacific rim from Chile to Vietnam. He and trade backers say it will open huge markets to U.S. goods by lowering tariffs and other trade barriers. Critics, labor and environmental groups in particular, argue that new trade agreements will cost jobs and that past agreements have not lived up to labor and environmental standards…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/31/obama-trade-agenda-faces-tougher-odds-heading-into-house/
Why Republicans Should Give Obama Trade Promotion Authority
“Republicans don’t trust President Obama. Can’t fault them for that. But that distrust is driving many of them to oppose trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation, also known as “fast track.” That’s the wrong conclusion. If distrust is the issue, then Republicans should support TPA rather than oppose it. Most Republicans support free trade and would like to give, as they have done many times in the past, a U.S. president the ability to negotiate a trade agreement with other countries as long as Congress gets an up-or-down vote on the agreement. That’s what TPA does. The issue isn’t TPA so much as President I-Have-a-Pen-and-a-Phone, who has repeatedly overstepped his constitutional authority. Why, Republican reasoning goes, give him another opportunity to abuse his power? But that reasoning misses an important point: Obama is more likely to go it alone when Congress DOESN’T ACT rather than when it does. That’s what happened when he decided to give a special legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants. Obama kept urging Congress to act and when it didn’t—at least not fast enough to please him—he moved forward with his amnesty plan. Ditto with his environmental agreement with China. Obama knew he couldn’t get Congress to approve the agreement, so he acted alone and claimed he had the authority to do so…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/05/31/why-republicans-should-give-obama-trade-promotion-authority/
GOP: Budget time and we need a strong defense to deter enemies
“Hello, I’m Senator Deb Fischer and I have the honor of representing the great state of Nebraska in the United States Senate. For generations, our military has answered the call to protect our freedom at home and our interests around the world. These service members are men and women of uncommon courage. From the shores of Normandy to the fields of Korea and beyond, America’s sons and daughters have never wavered in the defense of liberty — both as a fighting force and a force for good. Because of their sacrifice, the 20th century was ‘the American century.’ But our work is far from done. Every generation faces evil. And every generation has been called upon to step forward and protect our way of life. Our nation faces many challenges, and I believe the federal government has no higher priority than protecting the American people in an increasingly dangerous world. With this responsibility in mind, the Senate will soon consider its annual bill to authorize funding and set policy for our military, known as the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA. I am honored to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I was proud to contribute to this bipartisan legislation, which was overwhelmingly approved by our committee earlier this month. This bill takes a common-sense approach: it cuts spending from programs that have been delayed or failed to perform, and redirects that revenue to meet the critical needs of our war-fighters. In all, this year’s NDAA finds $10 billion in savings, which it uses to increase the capability and training of our men and women in uniform. It also invests in the future of our national defense, setting aside $400 million for the development of new technologies that will ensure our troops maintain their superiority on the battlefield. We are also addressing issues like the growing bureaucracy at the Pentagon. Our military is getting smaller, but combat units shouldn’t bear these cuts alone. This bill targets real reductions for headquarter and management staff as well.
It would also take steps for real reforms to our acquisition system — the way our military purchases weapons and equipment — to prevent wasteful spending…”
http://news.investors.com/Politics-Andrew-Malcolm/053015-754894-deb-fischer-national-defense-is-most-important-budget.htm
GOP urges Senate to pass controversial defense spending bill
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/gop-urges-senate-to-pass-controversial-defense-spending-bill/
Wall Street Costs The Economy 2% Of GDP Each Year
““Wall Street is back,” says the New York Times, and the economic cost is high. The excessive financialization of the US economy reduces the GDP by 2% every year, according to a new study by International Monetary Fund. That’s a massive drag on the economy–some $320 billion per year. Wall Street has thus become, not just a moral problem with rampant illegality and outlandish compensation of executives and traders: Wall Street is a macro-economic problem of the first order. The Financial Tail Wags The Economic Dog – How has this happened? Properly scaled, the financial sector is a good thing. The financial sector plays a healthy role in translating products and services into exchangeable financial instruments to facilitate trade in the real economy. Through deposits, banks channel citizens’ savings to businesses that can use them productively. Through mortgages, workers can trade their promise of future wages for a home. Through insurance, homeowners are able to share financial risks and avoid financial catastrophe. Problems occur when the financial sector gets too big. When the financial sector loses interest in the “boring” returns from financing the real economy and instead devotes its efforts to activities that are more lucrative in the short-term, like playing zero-sum games, or even negative-sum games, through complex transactions aimed at making money out of money, then excessive risk-taking occurs, with mis-allocation of human and financial resources and periodic financial crashes. Throughout history, periods of excessive financialization have coincided with periods of national economic setbacks, such as Spain in the 14th century, The Netherlands in the late 18th century, and Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The focus by elites on “making money out of money” rather than making real goods and services has led to wealth for the few, and overall national economic decline. “In a financialized economy, the financial tail is wagging the economic dog.” How Big Is Too Big? – How big is too big? An IMF study in 2012 showed “that “once the [financial] sector becomes too large—when private-sector credit reaches 80 percent to 100 percent of GDP— it actually inhibits growth and increases volatility. In the United States in 2012, private-sector credit was 184 percent of GDP.” So the US financial sector is already way too big…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/05/31/wall-street-costs-the-economy-2-of-gdp-each-year/
Cutting the Capital Gains Tax When a Rate Cut Isn’t in the Cards
“All conservatives agree that capital gains should be excluded from a consumption tax base (the tax base which is used in all conservative tax reform plans, from the FAIR Tax to the flat tax to everything in between). This takes two forms ideally–either new savings is deducted from personal income, or (as is more common), the yield on savings is excluded from personal income. Taxing income this way makes sense, because it isolates consumed income (as opposed to saved or invested income) and only consumed income to taxation. This leaves the maximum amount of productive income untouched from taxation so that it can increase productivity, grow wages, create jobs, augment nest eggs, etc. Eventually, even this income is consumed and subject to taxation, so there are no loopholes. Cutting the Capital Gains Tax Directly In the real world, movement toward this consumption base ideal is halting, unsteady, and uneven. A key policy goal of incremental progress toward a consumption base is cutting the tax rate on capital gains (and dividends, distributed after-tax corporate earnings) to zero. We’re a long way from that today. Thanks to the fiscal cliff (as mitigated by subsequent legislation) and Obamacare, the top capital gains rate today stands at 23.8 percent. That’s up from a nadir of 15 percent as recently as a few years ago. Cutting this tax rate is going to be difficult. First, it involves eliminating one of the twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act slapped a 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income in households that earn more than $200,000 per year (not indexed to inflation, incidentally). That’s hard enough…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2015/05/31/cutting-the-capital-gains-tax-when-a-rate-cut-isnt-in-the-cards/
Can 2016 Republicans top Hillary on issue No. 1 — the economy?
“Friday’s rotten news guaranteed that the top issue of the 2016 race for the White House will be the economy. The question is whether the Republicans can come up with a prescription that beats Hillary Clinton’s message of Obamanomics Lite. We yield to no one in our contempt for President Obama’s (mis)management of foreign policy, a litany of woes in which Clinton is fully complicit. But that’s not going to be front-and-center in voters’ minds. Friday’s numbers show that the US economy contracted in the year’s first quarter. If the second quarter winds up a bit worse than early estimates put it, then the nation’s officially back in recession. Either way, America’s still stuck in the “new normal” of an economy that’s essentially treading water…”
http://nypost.com/2015/05/29/can-2016-republicans-top-hillary-on-issue-no-1-the-economy/
COMMON CORE:
Carly Fiorina: Common Core ‘limits parents’ choices’ and ‘children’s options’
“GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina would give Common Core a failing grade. “Our education system is a big problem,” the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard said on “Fox News Sunday.” “When a Washington bureaucracy gets involved in a program, it becomes heavy-handed and standardized. It’s how Washington bureaucracy works.” Common Core is a set of federally mandated academic guidelines that dictate what students should know at the end of each grade of schooling from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Fiorina used China as an example of how federal involvement in education hurts the country. “China has put in place an education system that standardizes behavior,” she said. “It is part of their regime’s oppression.” What China has done is similar to Common Core in the United States, she said. “Common Core, unfortunately, limits parents’ choices,” Fiorina said. “It will, over time, limit our children’s options.”…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/carly-fiorina-common-core-limits-parents-choices-and-childrens-options/article/2565317?custom_click=rss
Carly Fiorina In-Depth Interview With “Fox News Sunday”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/31/carly_fiorina_in-depth_interview_with_fox_news_sunday.html
MISC.:
Zogby Presidential Report Card: Rotten week puts Dems on notice
“Pollster John Zogby reports in our weekly White House report card that President Obama suffered a double whammy on the economy and saw Islamic State advance, issues that could be trouble to Democratic candidates next year. “Such a rotten week. The president gets a double whammy on the economy. First is the report that the economy contracted .7 percent during the first quarter. That is devastating in itself, aside from what it does to the public spirit. “Next, the Consumer Confidence Index was down again, as it was last week and for the whole month of May. “At the same time, ISIS continues its advance. None of this is reflected in the polling on Obama yet, but it could get there. This is not what Democratic candidates need as the 2016 campaign develops. Just as much as GOP candidates certainly did not need news about squeaky clean Speaker Dennis Hastert. But a rotten week for the president.”…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/zogby-presidential-report-card-rotten-week-puts-dems-on-notice/article/2565246?custom_click=rss
Loretta Lynch has a Lois Lerner decision to make
“Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee have asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch for an update on whether she will pursue criminal charges against former IRS employee Lois Lerner for her role in the IRS targeting scandal. The committee last year identified three possible criminal charges that could be brought against Lerner, and asked the Department of Justice to consider bringing those charges. At the time, the attorney general was Eric Holder, and the committee chairman was Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. The new chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., asked Lynch on Thursday where that criminal referral stands. “The committee continues to believe that these serious charges should be [pursued] by the Department of Justice,” the letter said. “We would appreciate receiving an update on the status of the referral as soon as possible.” Last year, the committee said Lerner used her position to delay decisions on the tax-exempt status of conservative groups. Ryan’s letter said those efforts denied these groups “due process and equal protection rights under the law.” The committee also said Lerner provided misleading statements to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration when it was investigating the scandal, and that Lerner may have exposed confidential taxpayer information in the course of her tenure at the IRS. In March, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia told House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that no charges would be brought against Lerner for her failure to testify in Congress about the scandal. But Ryan’s letter noted that the U.S. attorney was silent on the committee’s criminal referral of Lerner on the other three charges. Ryan’s letter was signed by 23 other Republicans, and can be seen here:…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/loretta-lynch-has-a-lois-lerner-decision-to-make/article/2565172?custom_click=rss
Some surveillance powers to expire unless Senate acts
“In the run-up to this evening’s Senate showdown over National Security Agency surveillance, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) vowed to end the agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records, even as President Obama is urging passage of a compromise bill that would shut down that NSA program but also preserve several other spying powers. The Senate, which convened Sunday at 4 p.m., has only hours to act. At midnight Sunday, the surveillance authorities — all created under the USA Patriot Act — are due to lapse. “So what’s the problem?” Obama said in his weekly radio address Saturday. “A small group of senators is standing in the way. And unfortunately, some folks are trying to use this debate to score political points. But this shouldn’t and can’t be about politics. This is a matter of national security.” Obama urged lawmakers to “put the politics aside” and pass the USA Freedom Act. That bill, the product of months of compromise between Republicans and Democrats, the administration and privacy groups, won House approval by an overwhelming 338-to-88 vote earlier this month. It would carry out a goal that Obama announced nearly 11/2 years ago: to end the NSA’s bulk collection of phone metadata. Under the bill, the agency would stop future gathering of billions of call records — times, dates and durations. Instead, the phone companies would be required to adapt their systems so that they can be queried for records of specific terrorist suspects based on individual court orders. The bill also would renew other expiring investigative powers that the FBI says are critical. But a handful of senators who want to see stronger reforms and some who would prefer that the NSA program remain as is, have effectively blocked action on the b