apgov

November 14, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Paris deal failing? Global emissions up 2% despite U.S. drop; Chinese pollution skyrockets

Washington Times –

Two years after nearly every nation on earth signed the landmark Paris climate accord, researchers say the deal is failing to live up to its mission as China drives a spike in global carbon emissions, reversing years of steady decline.

The sobering news comes as world leaders gather in Germany for a high-level climate summit designed to marshal support for the Paris agreement and to encourage countries to make even more ambitious commitments to cut their own pollution.

Other nations have been critical of President Trump for announcing over the summer that the U.S. would pull out of the deal, but data released Monday show that American emissions are still dropping while those of China and other countries are back on the rise.

Several studies released by the Global Carbon Project say worldwide carbon emissions are projected to jump about 2 percent this year after staying flat for three years, according to preliminary estimates.

The culprit, the data show, is China, which has kept its emissions in check in recent years but now shows a massive rise in pollution. Under the Paris pact, China agreed to cap its emissions by 2030, meaning it is still free to increase pollution.

China’s uptick this year, after a 1 percent drop in 2015 and flat emissions last year, is largely a result of the country’s increased use of fossil fuels.

More broadly, researchers say, the data show the Paris agreement is not working as intended.

“Global commitments made in Paris in 2015 to reduce emissions are still not being matched by actions,” said Glen Peters, a research director at Cicero’s Center for International Climate Research.

“It is far too early to proclaim that we have turned a corner and started the journey toward zero emissions. While emissions may rise 2 percent in 2017, it is not possible to say whether this is a return to growth or a one-off increase,” said Mr. Peters, who led one of the reports that was included in the sweeping Global Carbon Project study.

Chinese emissions are projected to rise by 3.5 percent this year, according to the study. China is the world’s largest polluter and accounts for nearly 30 percent of all worldwide carbon emissions.

India’s emissions also are expected to rise by 2 percent, though that is a much smaller increase than in recent years.

U.S. emissions, by contrast, are projected to decline by 0.4 percent this year. That is less of a decline than in recent years, research shows, but still underscores that technological advancements and a market shift away from coal in America are having tangible effects.

European emissions also are expected to decline slightly this year.

The news doesn’t necessarily mean China is falling short of its promises because the nation has to do virtually nothing before 2030. But it’s still a troubling sign that highlights long-standing complaints about the climate accord, mainly that it penalizes the U.S. in the short term and allows China to keep polluting.

The Paris deal required the U.S. to cut its emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 when compared with 2005 levels. Mr. Trump shelved that commitment in June, saying the agreement was unfair to the U.S. and let other major polluters — specifically China and India — off the hook.

The data released Monday appear to back up his contention.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has become something of an international pariah at the Germany summit even though its emissions remain on a downward trajectory.

U.S. officials on Monday held an event focused on cleaner fossil fuels and nuclear power, and how those traditional power sources can help mitigate damage to the climate.

But the forum reportedly was interrupted by dozens of protesters who chanted, “You claim to be an American, but we see right through your greed.”

David Banks, a special assistant to Mr. Trump on environmental issues, said the event could be considered controversial only “if we choose to bury our heads in the sand” about the need for clean fossil fuels, Reuters reported.

Nevertheless, environmentalists largely ignored the findings that U.S. emissions are headed down while China is fueling a worldwide increase. Instead, they hammered the administration for even bringing up the notion of continued fossil fuel use.

“Nothing could encapsulate the extreme tone-deafness and isolation of this administration more than an event to celebrate fossil fuels during this important global climate meeting,” said John Coequyt, global climate policy director at the Sierra Club, one of the world’s leading environmental groups.

As for emissions, researchers suggest the data show that the reality of controlling pollution is far different from the promises any country makes under the Paris accord. For example, China’s economic growth this year has fueled the need for more energy, and the country is relying on fossil fuels to meet that need despite its promises under Paris.

Emissions increases could continue in the coming years without aggressive action, analysts said.

“The slowdown in emissions growth from 2014 to 2016 was always a delicate balance, and the likely 2 percent increase in 2017 clearly demonstrates that we can’t take the recent slowdown for granted,” said Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at Cicero who also co-authored the studies.

Source: US Government Class

November 9, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Judge: State workers can take paid leave to vote in most elections

Santa Fe New Mexican – State employees have a right to be paid when they take time off work to vote in an election, a state judge in Santa Fe ruled Wednesday in a case that could have consequences for workers in private businesses, nonprofits and government agencies.

The decision resolves for now a lawsuit challenging a policy allowing New Mexico government workers to claim paid administrative leave while voting in most elections — but not local races. It was filed last month by two state employees just days before the first round of polling in Albuquerque’s mayoral race.

The lawsuit argues that the workers effectively would be penalized for taking time from work to vote in the city election because they would lose either pay or vacation time.

First Judicial District Court Judge David Thomson said the state government’s voting leave policy must extend to municipal elections.

But the case raised bigger questions beyond the state’s personnel policies, becoming instead a broader test of the rights of New Mexico voters and whether employees — in the private sector and the public sector — are guaranteed paid leave when taking time from work to vote.

New Mexico law says a voter “shall not be liable to any penalty” if he or she takes up to two hours off work to cast a ballot on an election day. But the law does not apply if an employee’s workday begins more than two hours after the polls open or ends three hours before the polls close.

Lawyers for the State Personnel Office argued that the law does not expressly require employers to pay workers while they are voting. “A penalty is much different than not being paid for time not worked,” the office said in one of its filings in the case.

Thomson disagreed.

The state government formerly allowed employees to claim administrative leave for voting in any election. But in 2014, the State Personnel Office altered the policy, ending the practice of providing paid leave for workers to vote in local elections. The office said there is no easy way for it to verify whether employees who claim the paid leave actually voted in local races, such as for mayor or city council.

While the Secretary of State’s Office keeps records of which voters participate in statewide elections, it does not keep such records on local races.

And some New Mexico government workers have abused the voting leave policy, the State Personnel Office has said.

The office conducted an audit after the 2014 election and said 243 employees across 50 agencies in the executive and judicial branches of state government had claimed administrative leave to vote but never cast a ballot. State Personnel Office Director Justin Najaka told the Albuquerque Journal in 2015 that 42 employees who claimed administrative leave in 2014 were not even registered to vote.

A few years earlier, the office had accused 721 workers of claiming administrative leave for the 2010 election despite never casting ballots.

One of the workers who filed the lawsuit, Daniel Secrist, an employee at the Museum of Natural History and Science as well as a leader in a workers union, Communications Workers of America Local 7076, drew on his annual leave to cast a ballot.

During a hearing Tuesday on the case, Judge Thomson suggested that having to use a benefit like vacation time to vote amounts to precisely the sort of penalty prohibited by law.

Workers, he said, would be left wondering, “Do I have the annual leave to go vote? Do I need that leave for some other reason?”

The following morning, Thomson issued his ruling, citing the state constitution and ultimately suggesting the case goes to the heart of New Mexico’s efforts to protect voters exercising their democratic rights.

“The decision supports this fundamental right encouraging people to participate in democracy,” said Shane Youtz, a lawyer for two workers unions, Communication Workers of America Local 7076 and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 18.

Unclear is whether the state might appeal. A spokesman for the State Personnel Office did not respond to a request for comment.

The law may seem unnecessary in a time when voters have more than one day to cast a ballot in an election. Many participate in early voting or cast their ballots by mail. Voters in some places, such as Santa Fe and Albuquerque, are no longer limited to a specific polling station on an election day but instead can cast a ballot at any designated polling site in the city or county.

Other states have what are known as “pay-while-you-vote” laws. Arizona, for example, gives workers three paid hours at the beginning or end of their shift to vote on an election day. Texas allows what the law describes as “sufficient” paid time off to vote.

If the state of New Mexico appeals Thomson’s ruling and the case goes to a higher court, it could set a precedent for workers beyond state government and clarify rules in a section of law that attorneys for the State Personnel Office say is ambiguous.

“This is an issue probably most appropriately addressed a few blocks away,” Christopher Saucedo, a lawyer for the office, told Thomson on Tuesday, referring to the state Capitol a few blocks from the courthouse.

Source: US Government Class

November 2, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

GOP tax plan: 5 ways the proposed tax cuts could impact you

CBS News – Republicans are remaking the tax code, vowing to make it easier for individuals to pay Uncle Sam his due.

The tax plan, which was released on Thursday, is touted as simple enough to allow nine of 10 Americans to “file on a form as simple as a postcard. But it’s also aimed at lowering corporate taxes, as well as eliminating the estate tax and other taxes that impact wealthy families.

Called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the tax reform proposal is billed by Republican lawmakers as a path to job creation and higher wages for workers, even though there’s little historical evidence that corporate tax cuts trickle down into higher pay for employees. Nevertheless, low-wage and middle-class Americans are likely to benefit, thanks to a higher personal standard deduction and lower tax rates, although many may end up with fewer deductions, especially those in high-tax states.

“There is no evidence to suggest this plan as a whole will be positive for middle-income workers and much to suggest that when this is complete, it will be a significant net negative,” said Gene Sperling, a former director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in The White House, on a conference call to discuss the tax plan. “You can lower somebody’s taxes, but people understand there is no free lunch.”

The tax cuts are unlikely to be offset by equivalent spending reductions, which could cause the federal budget deficit and debt to grow, Moody’s Investors Service senior vice president Sarah Carlson said by email.

“It is unlikely that the increased taxable income from higher growth will compensate for the proposed cuts in tax rates,” she added.

Many of the provisions in the proposal will help President Donald Trump’s businesses and boost his personal income, said Seth Hanlon, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. Those include the phase out of the estate tax and lower rates for pass-through income.

“It’s almost as if this bill was written by Donald Trump’s accountant,” Hanlon said.

Like any major piece of legislation, the House GOP tax plan is likely to change as lawmakers wrangle over the details and as special interests weigh in. Passage of the bill is not assured, even with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and as Mr. Trump pushes legislators to deliver a measure by year’s end. For now, the proposal amounts to the biggest change in U.S. tax law in decades. Here are five key takeaways:

Who benefits most? The tax plan is billed by the GOP as providing a break to the middle class, but critics say the benefits will overwhelmingly be enjoyed by corporations and the rich. That’s because the tax rate on corporations will be reduced to 20 percent from 35 percent, allowing the country’s biggest companies to retain more of their profits.

Economists say there’s little relationship between post-tax profit rates and business investment that boosts productivity, while productivity and wages have grown faster in periods of higher taxes, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

How would the richest Americans fare under the bill? The GOP plan keeps the highest individual income tax bracket for the country’s top earners at 39.6 percent. But critics say the proposal still provides a windfall to rich families because it will double the limit on the estate tax to $10 million and then phase it out after six years.

The proposal also calls for a 25 percent rate for pass-through businesses, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, rather than paying the individual tax rate. For the rich — who are more likely than the middle class to employ such tax structures, that could produce a sizable savings.

The proposal also does away with the alternative minimum tax, which will help reduce taxes on some higher-income taxpayers.

Would any deductions be eliminated? Yes and no. The plan proposes limits on two popular deductions, which may hurt Americans in highly taxed or expensive states such as New York and California. The two biggest impacts will be on the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for state and local taxes. Here are some of the more notable changes:

  • Homeowners will be capped at taking deductions on home mortgages greater than $500,000.
  • Deductions for state and property taxes would be capped at $10,000.
  • The medical expense deduction would be eliminated.
  • Despite talk of capping the tax break for 401(k) plans, the proposal doesn’t include changes to the retirement plans.

How would my tax bracket change? The plan calls for reducing the number of tax brackets from seven currently to four: 12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent and 39.6 percent (many poorer Americans would continue paying 0 percent). Under current tax law, single filers who make between $37,951 and $91,900 pay the 25 percent rate, but the plan would change the 25 percent tax bracket to cover single filers earning between $45,001 to $200,000, for example. Americans who currently make between $91,901 and $200,000 would be pushed into a lower tax bracket from their current 28 percent to 33 percent currently.

How would the tax plan help families? The standard deduction will increase to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples, or almost double the current standard deductions. The proposal also increases the child tax credit to $1,600 from $1,000. It also provides a $300 credit for non-child dependents, such as spouses. Nevertheless, child welfare advocates say the measure doesn’t go far enough to help children, with Andy Stettner, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation calling the higher child tax credit “a half measure.”

http://www.mrmontano.com/wp-admin/post-new.php”The drop in federal revenues will jeopardize critical investments in education, healthcare, and social services for tens of millions who need them most,” Stettner said in a statement.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

Source: US Government Class

November 1, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Martinez ranked sixth least popular governor in U.S.

Santa Fe New Mexican –

It’s a different world for Gov. Susana Martinez, who used to fend off questions about whether she was interested in the No. 2 spot on the national Republican ticket.

Now Martinez is the sixth least popular governor in the country, according to a poll released Tuesday.

Research by the firm Morning Consult shows the two-term Republican’s approval rating has fallen to 37 percent from 44 percent in July. The share of New Mexico voters who disapprove of Martinez’s job performance has climbed from 45 percent to 52 percent.

And it might get worse for Martinez. As she approaches her final year in office, Democrats control the Legislature, meaning she will have little chance to get any of her agenda approved. Moreover, U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, the likely Republican nominee in the 2018 gubernatorial race, is trying to distance himself from Martinez.

But the polling also seems to reflect a frustration with the nation’s leaders in general. The approval ratings of nearly every U.S. senator have fallen, including the two Democrats representing New Mexico.

Sen. Tom Udall’s approval rating fell from 53 percent in July to 45 percent in October while his disapproval rating rose from 27 percent to 31 percent.

Sen. Martin Heinrich, who’s running for re-election next year, had an approval rating in July of about 48 percent. That fell to 45 percent and his disapproval rating rose 1 point to 31 percent.

Still, Martinez is unusual in ranking among the least popular governors in the country, according to the company that compiled the 50-state online poll that included more than 255,000 registered voters between July 1 and Sept. 30. The company polled 1,267 voters in New Mexico over those three months.

“Most governors across the country are seeing their approval numbers drop this year, but she’s fairing particularly poorly,” said Kyle Dropp, Morning Consult’s chief research officer. “Since the first quarter of 2017, Martinez’s approval has dropped by 10 net percentage points. The average governor’s approval has dropped by 5 net percentage points.”

Other second-term governors in the West have done much better than Martinez.

Brian Sandoval, Nevada’s Republican governor, is wrapping up his penultimate year in office with an approval rating above 60 percent. Matt Mead and Dennis Daugaard, the Republican governors of Wyoming and South Dakota, respectively, have been in office as long as Martinez and are riding approval ratings of 59 percent.

Martinez is not quite in the territory of the man Morning Consult says is the country’s least popular governor, Chris Christie, of New Jersey. Seventy-seven percent of voters surveyed in the Garden State disapprove of his job performance.

This has been a tumultuous year for Martinez, however.

She gutted the budget approved by legislators earlier this year, forcing a special session by scrapping funding for all colleges and universities, among other things. Though she eventually signed a spending plan, the state’s finances are still recovering after budget deficits in recent years that forced cuts across government.

If Morning Consult’s least popular governors have anything in common, it is budget troubles. Polling worse than Martinez in their respective states are Illinois’ Bruce Rauner and Kansas’ Sam Brownback — both of whom have battled their legislatures over spending.

New Mexico’s economy is showing signs of improvement, however, with the overall poverty rate falling slightly in 2016 and the unemployment rate inching downward. But this comes after what some economists have labeled a lost decade for the state, with New Mexico lagging behind much of the country.

Meanwhile, crime is on the rise, particularly in Albuquerque.

Martinez already has signaled she will make this a central issue in the 30-day legislative session that starts in January. The question will be whether the looming election season and what is expected to be a tight budget lead to another partisan feud.

Source: US Government Class

October 31, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Four Kansas teens for governor, one forum, plenty of questions

Wichita Eagle – They argued about abortion rights. They debated taxes. They even tackled water policy.

Four teens running for Kansas governor appeared together at a forum at Lawrence Free State High School on Thursday, possibly months before the adult candidates will do the same. The candidates sought to persuade dozens of students, some of whom can vote.

“This needs to be a government that represents everyone, not just 30 years old up,” said candidate Dominic Scavuzzo.

The sight of four candidates, all under 18, competing for the state’s highest office is made possible by a quirk of Kansas law, which sets no age restrictions for governor. Some other states set minimum ages; it’s 30 in Missouri, for example.

The teens are part of a large field of candidates: At last count, 18 candidates – all men – had jumped in.

Ella Keathley, a 16-year-old junior at Free State High School who organized the forum, said having students hear from candidates their age would help them relate to political issues.

“In past political events, I was like ‘I can’t say anything about this, there’s nothing I can do.’ So I felt it was important to teenagers to see other teenagers doing this and not being told by some 30-year-old male that this is our future when obviously it can be taken into our own hands,” Keathley said.

The discussion focused largely on policy proposals, with only a few questions about how the candidates would handle high school if elected (one would get a GED).

Ethan Randleas, a 17-year-old Wichita Heights High School student running as a Republican, championed a strict version of libertarianism: Repeal the corporate income tax and deregulate the healthcare industry. Private roads are OK.

Jack Bergeson, a 16-year-old Democrat attending the Independent School in Wichita, wants a $12 minimum wage. He proposes a $1,000 cap on donations to candidates. And Kansas needs a comprehensive high-speed rail system connecting major cities in the region.

Tyler Ruzich, a 17-year-old Republican from Johnson County, assailed budget cuts under Gov. Sam Brownback. He wants to strengthen Medicaid and supports criminal amnesty for drug users who seek medical attention.

Scavuzzo, 17, also a Johnson County Republican, doesn’t want high taxes. But he says the state needs to better distribute aid to school districts: some get too much, others not enough.

Despite clashes over some issues, the teens agree to some extent on the need to decriminalize marijuana.

“I think we all share the common belief, especially on drug policy, that it’s time to change our dialogue on medical marijuana and recreational marijuana,” Ruzich said.

The forum, in the school’s gym, was civil and students spent about an hour asking questions. Still, moments of tension surfaced.

Ruzich had finished answering a question about paying for roads. “Laissez faire” economics failed in Kansas, he said.

Randleas, who is open to private roads, responded by asking if “you use the road as much as I do? You don’t drive yet, so you don’t.”

That prompted a stream of “ooohs” and murmurs from the audience.

Other questions also exposed splits between the candidates – including on abortion.

“I’m Catholic. I go to a Catholic high school. I’m pro-life. I truly believe every life should be protected from conception,” Scavuzzo said.

Bergeson said he supported abortion rights, but wanted to make changes to make abortion a less frequent choice.

“I am for streamlining the adoption process and making it easier to get contraception,” Bergeson said.

One student asked about the future of the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to much of western Kansas. The long-term viability of the aquifer is in question, and Brownback has promoted policies intended to rebuild it.

Randleas suggested allowing irrigation and the water supply to become a private industry.

“The supply and demand will never allow the good to run out of supply. It will raise the price to allow the people who really need to use it, use it,” Randleas said.

Jake Zenger, 16, said he enjoyed the event and hearing the candidates’ opinions. He acknowledged the candidates probably didn’t have much support among Kansans but he still found the forum valuable.

“It’s good to just see what the younger age groups of people are thinking,” Zenger said.

Izabella Fletcher, 16, wants to get into politics and plans to attend the University of Kansas as a pre-law student.

She said she appreciated the honesty of the teen candidates.

“Typically, politicians play sort of a game,” Fletcher said. “They don’t like to answer questions so directly because they’re trying to kind of please everyone.”

Source: US Government Class

October 30, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

N.M. hardest to count for census

Santa Fe New Mexican – It is hard to put a number on much of what makes New Mexico unique, from the beauty of its desert sunsets to the taste of its chile.

Turns out, it is tough to put a number on its population, too.

Nearly half of New Mexico’s nearly 2.1 million residents live in areas where the U.S. Census Bureau has a particularly hard time counting the population — a larger proportion than any other state, according to an analysis by the City University of New York.

With the bureau proposing to rely more on the Internet in tallying all of America’s residents against the backdrop of tightening funding constraints, conservatives and Democratic lawmakers alike warn there is a big risk New Mexicans will be undercounted and consequently underrepresented.

The analysis found 48 percent of New Mexicans live in areas where the population is hard to count. Alaska has the second-highest rate, with about 44 percent, followed by New York with about 37 percent. On the other end of the list, only 3 percent of Minnesotans, Idahoans and Iowans live in areas considered hard to count.

Counting every single American is a massive undertaking and difficult in any circumstance. To get a tally of the population, the U.S. Census Bureau has relied on mailing surveys to each household and dispatching an army of temporary workers to knock on the doors of those who do not respond. Obtaining an accurate head count gets a lot harder in communities that are difficult to navigate, such as New Mexico’s frontiers, and communities where people might move around regularly with no fixed address or simply will not open the door for a government worker.

Though the federal government says it overcounted the country’s total population by about .01 percent and New Mexicans by about .16 percent during the last census in 2010, some argue the state and particular groups within it could be overlooked if the agency scales back its door-knocking and outreach in favor of online data. In 2010, for example, American Indians living on reservations were undercounted by about 4.88 percent. People who identified as Hispanic were undercounted by about 1.54 percent.

The consequences of undercounting can be long-lasting and far-reaching.

The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government conduct a census every 10 years. The data is in turn used to draw the boundaries of congressional and legislative districts, determining in part how much political power communities get on Capitol Hill and in the Roundhouse. Government agencies use the data to make decisions about spending on a range of programs, too, from highway maintenance to school lunches and Medicaid.

Businesses also use information gathered in the census when deciding where to invest, what to pay their workers and even what they should stock on their store shelves.

But the census is expensive. If run the same way as the 2010 census, the 2020 edition will cost about $17.5 billion, according to the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee. To avoid increasing costs, the federal government is drastically changing how it conducts the census.

The 2020 Census will be the first conducted largely online, providing households an option to fill out the survey over the Internet, which officials say could boost responses while keeping costs in check. The Census Bureau also is considering using data from private companies and files from other government agencies to fill in the gaps when households do not respond.

Observers say that will present its own problems in states like New Mexico.

Civil rights groups say the bureau has long undercounted communities that may be particularly difficult to reach, requiring more on-the-ground efforts to ensure the decennial count accurately includes racial and ethnic minorities, people with low incomes, immigrants, children and the homeless.

“While the 2020 Census will deploy new technologies and procedures designed to reduce paperwork and save money, those changes will not by themselves overcome the challenges of reaching hard-to-count areas,” said Steven Romalewski, director of the City University of New York Mapping Service.

Romalewski found congressional districts where relatively few people return their census surveys in the mail also tended to have more households without Internet access.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s own estimates, New Mexico is one of the least internet-connected states in the country. About one out of five households does not have access to the internet.

The state’s population has risen from about 1.8 million in 2000 to about 2 million in 2010, but is estimated to have stagnated during the recession.

In turn, observers on the left and right have raised concerns that the Census Bureau is scaling back plans to test its new system. Congress usually raises the agency’s budget in the years approaching a census. But for the last budget year, it provided about $160 million less than the agency had requested. And President Donald Trump has proposed relatively little additional funding for the bureau.

Observers say that leaves the Census Bureau short of what it needs to pull off planned changes before 2020.

“This is yet another example of how irresponsible budget cuts can have a profound impact on citizens for years to come,” U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, said through a spokeswoman. “Increasingly relying on internet surveys is a mistake that will lead to an inaccurate picture of New Mexico and other states where a larger than average proportion of the population does not have access to the internet.”

Writing recently for Bloomberg, Northwestern University economist Diane Schanzenbach and Michael Strain, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, argued “this lack of investment is penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

“If the Census Bureau does not have adequate resources to invest in developing a new modern infrastructure for 2020, it will have to do one of two things,” they wrote. “It could resort to the old, expensive approach to ensure an adequate count, driving up costs to taxpayers. Or it could conduct a lower-quality census, diminishing the value of the data.”

Source: US Government Class

October 26, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Trump to declare opioid crisis a public health emergency

ABC News – President Donald Trump will officially declare the opioid epidemic a public health emergency in an announcement at the White House on Thursday.

The move diverges from previous promises — even as recently as Wednesday night — to declare the epidemic a “national emergency”

Two senior administration officials confirm to ABC News that the president will direct acting secretary of Health and Human Services Eric Hargan to announce a nationwide public health emergency and also direct agency heads of other departments and agencies to exercise emergency authorities to minimize deaths and damage caused by the opioid crisis. USA Today first reported the details

“A nationwide public health emergency will really reorient all of the federal government and executive branch’s resources towards focusing on providing relief for this urgent need,” an official said.

The president had said as early as August he would be declaring a “national emergency,” which many interpreted as his commitment to authorize a presidential emergency under the Stafford Act or the National Emergencies Act.

“The opioid crisis is an emergency, and I’m saying officially right now: It is an emergency. It’s a national emergency,” Trump said at the time. “We’re going to draw it up and we’re going to make it a national emergency. It is a serious problem, the likes of which we have never had.”

The president teased the announcement on Wednesday, telling reporters an emergency declaration “gives us the power to do things that you can’t do right now,” but offered no additional details.

In an interview Wednesday night with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network, the president again alluded to the announcement he planned to make.

“There are a lot of good people that are seeing what’s going on and I think we’ll be successful in that next week I’m declaring an emergency — a national emergency — on drugs,” Trump told Dobbs. “The opioid [crisis] is a tremendous emergency.”

However, experts have told ABC News that declaring it an official national emergency, as Trump long touted he would eventually do, might have been a mistake.

Experts described the difference between the two potential declaration options before the president in interviews earlier this week.

The Stafford Act would have opened up federal resources such as FEMA‘s Disaster Relief Fund — usually employed for natural disasters such as hurricanes Maria and Harvey.

This gives federal agencies the authority to cut red tape hindering recovery missions. Requests for funding from the Disaster Relief Fund come from a governor who claims the circumstances has overwhelmed his or her state’s resources.

The president instead will ask the acting-Secretary of Health and Human Services to declare a public health emergency, which allows the agency to waive restrictions and deploy medical personnel to rural areas where medical options are limited.

The Public Health Emergency Fund at HHS currently stands at $57,000, according to an agency spokesperson, and officials said the president’s declaration won’t yet include a request for Congress to replenish the fund.

The declaration follows a bombshell report from The Washington Post and CBS News’ “60 Minutes” implicating multiple members of Congress in the passage of a bill that significantly weakened the Drug Enforcement Agency’s enforcement capabilities in the opioid crisis in favor of lobbying by pharmaceutical companies.

Following the report, Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., withdrew his name from consideration to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The number of prescription opioids legally sold nearly quadrupled from 1999 to 2010, despite no change in the amount of pain that Americans reported, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Today, drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in the United States — the majority of those lethal episodes involve an opioid.

The president has made the crisis a primary talking point during his campaign for the White House and in March signed an executive order launching a commission led by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to explore ways to curb opioid abuse and overdoses.

On the campaign trail, he would often speak about the opioid crisis in states like New Hampshire and Ohio, but would often cite drugs pouring from across the southern border as a primary driver of the problem.

He reiterated that specific concern with Dobbs on Wednesday and cited his planned wall along the U.S.-Mexico border as a deterrent.

“What’s going on there [with] the drugs pouring into the country,” Trump said. “I’ll tell you what, we’ve made a big impact, but still, we need the wall. Part of the reason we need the wall is for drugs.”

Source: US Government Class

October 24, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

Trump urges House GOP to pass Senate budget, tax reform

CNN – President Donald Trump urged House members to adopt the Senate’s budget this week and follow through on tax reform during a House GOP conference call Sunday.

“We are on the verge of doing something very, very historic,” Trump said, according to a Republican source speaking with CNN.
House leaders updated members on the Senate’s passage of its budget, which was revised at the House’s request, and the House’s plan to pass that budget this coming week during the call, which Vice President Mike Pence also took part in.
House Speaker Paul Ryan told members that he wants tax reform enacted by the end of the year, and passing the revised Senate budget this week provides the best shot to get it done on that timeline.
In an interview that aired on Fox News earlier Sunday, Trump dismissed Democratic leaders’ assertions that the Republican tax reform proposal will hurt the middle class as “their standard” line and claimed the GOP proposal would bring the “biggest tax cuts ever in the history of this country.”
“I think we are going to get our taxes,” Trump told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo. “I think it is going to be — hopefully before the end of the year, but maybe much sooner than that. There’s great spirit for it. People want to see it. And I call it tax cuts. It is tax reform also. But I call it tax cuts. It will be the biggest cuts ever in the histodry of this country. I think that there’s tremendous appetite. There’s tremendous spirit for it.”
In a USA Today op-ed on Sunday, Trump hearkened back to Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts of the 1980s and proclaimed the “era of economic surrender is now over.”
“We will cut taxes for hardworking, middle-class families,” the President wrote, adding that the United States will “restore our competitive edge so we can create better jobs and higher wages for American workers.”
The op-ed also claimed the plan “will bring back trillions” of American dollars currently overseas, and will raise the average American family income by about $4,000.
On Fox News, Trump called Democrats’ critique that the plan will benefit the rich an “automatic talking point.”
He further zeroed in on criticism of the plan by fellow New Yorker, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
“I like Schumer, but before he even knows the plan he’ll say, ‘Oh this is for the rich,’” Trump said. “So he doesn’t even know what the plan is, and he’s screaming it’s for the rich.”
The dig on the framework has been that while it is silent on many key details, those measures it does specify disproportionately favor the rich. Republicans have been trying to market tax reform as a boon for the middle class.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said Friday that House Republicans plan to propose a new top income tax rate for high earners in addition to the 35% rate proposed in the recent tax framework negotiated by leading Republican lawmakers and the White House.
That framework calls for just three tax rates — 12%, 25% and 35% — but allows for the possibility of a fourth to ensure that tax reform doesn’t help the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Trump said in the interview that aired Sunday that he believes he has the votes to pass the tax reform plan, quickly adding that he thought Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who voted against the Republican budget proposal to pave the way for those proposed tax cuts Thursday, “actually is going to vote for the tax cuts.”
“I think that other people — you know, we had tremendous enthusiasm this time,” Trump said. “Health care I was told was tougher, but it was close. I mean, so far I would say, it’s not even a contest. And I will tell you speaking of health care, I believe we’re going to get that also. It will be in the form of block grants to the different states, and it will be a wonderful health care.”
Another attempt to overhaul US health care will come “a little bit later, probably in three of four months from now,” Trump added. “But I do believe we will have that long before the election in 18′.”
“As far as taxes are concerned, you see what’s happening,” Trump said. “It’s really doing well — great enthusiasm.”

CNN’s Boris Sanchez and Jeanne Sahadi contributed to this report.

Source: US Government Class

October 24, 2017 0 Comment apgov
Share:

‘Collusion’ claims boomerang on Dems as Hillary, Obama face fresh allegations

FoxNews – After months of batting back accusations of collusion with Moscow in last year’s presidential campaign, Republicans say Democrats are the ones who now have “some explaining to do” as fresh developments raise questions about their own Russia connections.

First came reports that the FBI knew about a Russian bribery plot tied to nuclear energy interests in the U.S. well before the Obama administration OK’d a mining company sale to a Russian firm, giving it partial control over American uranium reserves.

Then came a report that Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation is looking at the dealings of Tony Podesta, a powerful Democratic lobbyist and the brother of former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Meanwhile, Fusion GPS, the firm behind the controversial anti-Trump dossier, has gone to court to block Congress from getting its bank records after its representatives pleaded the Fifth in a Capitol Hill appearance last week.

Hillary Clinton on Monday brushed off the revival of the uranium deal controversy as “baloney” meant to distract from GOP controversies.

But Republicans beg to differ.

“Now it’s the Democrats who have some explaining to do,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement overnight. “I hope they will cooperate with the investigation, be forthcoming with the American people and I expect the media to cover these new developments with the same breathless intensity that they have given to this investigation since day one.”

NBC News first reported early Monday that Tony Podesta and The Podesta Group are now subjects in the special counsel’s Russia investigation, following inquiries regarding former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s finances.

REPORT: MUELLER PROBE EXPANDS TO TONY PODESTA’S DEALINGS

According to Monday’s NBC News report, Mueller’s team started looking into a Manafort-involved PR campaign for a pro-Ukraine nonprofit reportedly backed by a pro-Russia party; the Podesta Group reportedly was one of many firms that worked on the campaign. According to the report, Mueller’s investigators have since launched a criminal inquiry into whether the company violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires people in the U.S. who lobby on behalf of foreign entities to register as foreign agents and disclose their work.

Podesta’s firm eventually filed a registration for the work, after the media reported on the business and Congress started asking questions. But in a statement on Monday, a spokesperson for The Podesta Group claimed the company was in compliance — citing a series of filings dating back years — and is “fully” cooperating with the special counsel’s office.

“The Podesta Group fully disclosed its representation of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECFMU), and complied with FARA by filing under the lobbying disclosure act over five years ago and within weeks of starting our work,” the spokesperson said. “Any insinuation to the contrary is false. The Podesta Group has fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s office and taken every possible step to provide documentation that confirms compliance with the law.”

Meanwhile, new details have emerged since last week on the 2010 approval of the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russia’s Rosatom nuclear company. The U.S. was involved because the sale gave the Russians control of part of the uranium supply in the U.S.

The Hill reported, however, that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S., related to a subsidiary of the same Russia firm.

Several Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are now asking questions about how the deal was approved the next year by an inter-agency committee. Among them, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. – who has raised concerns about the Uranium One transaction since 2010 – wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Oct. 19 that he’s “extremely disheartened and disturbed” by reports indicating the government approved the deal despite the DOJ having “evidence of corruption by Russian nuclear energy officials in the United States.”

He asked for “all documents” disclosed by the department to the committee – of which the DOJ was a member – concerning the investigation prior to the approval.

The Hill has since reported that as Hillary Clinton began her role as secretary of state, a Russian spy posing as an accountant became close to a Democratic donor in hopes of gathering intelligence on Clinton’s State Department. (The spy was later arrested.) Lawmakers have also revived questions that first surfaced in 2015 about payments to both Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation from “interested parties.”

Addressing the matter Monday on C-SPAN, Clinton said “it’s the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone. In fact, it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee said these issues are just part of the “distraction and diversion” from the investigation into Russian meddling and possible coordination with Trump associates in last year’s election.

“The closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians … the more they want to just throw mud on the wall,” Clinton said.

But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday that the only “collusion” is on the other side.

“If you want to see collusion with anyone and the Russians, look no further than the Democrats. Look no further than Tony Podesta and the Clinton crew,” she said.

On another front, Fusion GPS has gone to court in an attempt to block a House committee subpoena for the company’s banking records.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had issued a subpoena on Oct. 4 for those TD Bank records. But, according to documents reviewed by Fox News, Fusion is seeking a “temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction” to block the release of those records.

Fusion’s filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claimed that complying with the subpoena would “deny Plaintiff and its clients their rights to free speech and expressive association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

House Republican lawyers countered Monday in their own court filing that the company is a for-profit business and not an “association” engaged in protected activity under the First Amendment. “Plaintiff’s argument is too clever by half, and an insult to the efforts of true advocacy organizations,” they said.

Fusion has refused to tell congressional committees who paid for the dossier or reveal its sources. Two top officials from the political research firm invoked their Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions last Wednesday before the same House panel.

Source: US Government Class