/PRNewswire / -- Moira Gaul, Family Research Council's Director of Women's and Reproductive Health, released the following statement regarding the Obama Administration's decision to sell the morning-after-pill to 17-year-olds without a prescription.
"The Obama Administration is permitting a judge to make a scientific decision as to the safety of the over-the-counter sale of Plan B. This decision places policy preferences before safety. The best interest of women's health is not advanced by these decisions. Reason, science, and compassion clearly are not the animating factors of the decision.
"In order for a drug to be sold over-the-counter, patients must be able to safely medicate themselves without medical supervision. Studies tracking the label comprehension for Plan B show poor awareness that Plan B is not a substitute for standard contraceptives. The FDA-approved label for Plan B gives no clear indication that repeated use of Plan B in a short period of time is not safe.
"FDA officials understood these safety concerns in 2006 and were not convinced that the label comprehension data for teens demonstrated that they could use Plan B safely. The FDA officials believed more data needed to be submitted.
"There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to women, especially sexually abused women and minors, under coercion or without their consent. Interaction with medical professionals is a major screening and defense mechanism for victims of sexual abuse. The availability of Plan B over-the-counter also bypasses the necessary routine medical care of sexually active girls and women, which is important for the screening of health conditions, and for providing screening for sexually transmitted diseases."
Showing posts with label obama administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama administration. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
FRC Action: Obama Administration Working to Overturn Pro-Life Laws in Other Countries
/PRNewswire / -- Today in a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on foreign policy priorities in the Obama Administration, U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) asked Secretary Clinton if the Obama Administration is working to overturn other countries pro-life laws and if the administration sees "reproductive rights" and "reproductive health" as including abortion.
Secretary Clinton's answered the latter question by stating, "We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion. ... We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care."
"It is clear from this statement that the Obama Administration is working to overturn other countries' pro-life laws," said FRC Action Senior Vice-President Tom McCluskey. "Secretary Clinton said that Rep. Smith is free to push his belief in pro-life policies in other countries, and that 'we' - evidently referring to the Obama Administration - are free to do the same.
"It is appalling but not surprising that this Administration has a total lack of respect for life. Discontent to pro-life protections in our own country, they feel strangely compelled to export a pro-abortion agenda overseas, using taxpayer dollars to do so.
"If Secretary Clinton is to be believed, this appears to be the Obama Administration's foreign policy. To push their imperialistic commitment to abortion on demand on countries who oppose their agenda of death is their goal, and they are intent upon doing so. At least they are candid about it. And at least now the American people know, without any doubt, where the Administration stands," McCluskey concluded.
Secretary Clinton's answered the latter question by stating, "We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion. ... We are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care."
"It is clear from this statement that the Obama Administration is working to overturn other countries' pro-life laws," said FRC Action Senior Vice-President Tom McCluskey. "Secretary Clinton said that Rep. Smith is free to push his belief in pro-life policies in other countries, and that 'we' - evidently referring to the Obama Administration - are free to do the same.
"It is appalling but not surprising that this Administration has a total lack of respect for life. Discontent to pro-life protections in our own country, they feel strangely compelled to export a pro-abortion agenda overseas, using taxpayer dollars to do so.
"If Secretary Clinton is to be believed, this appears to be the Obama Administration's foreign policy. To push their imperialistic commitment to abortion on demand on countries who oppose their agenda of death is their goal, and they are intent upon doing so. At least they are candid about it. And at least now the American people know, without any doubt, where the Administration stands," McCluskey concluded.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Social Security Institute Launches Web Site, Inaugurates Campaign to Prevent Nationalization of Healthcare
/PRNewswire / -- Today, the Social Security Institute (SSI) launched its new Web Site in preparation for a full-scale effort to stop the raid on Social Security, cease the use of Social Security surpluses to bail out banks and insurance companies and prevent Congress and the Obama Administration from nationalizing healthcare and turning it over to the government to run. The site will offer a range of items of interest not only to seniors but to everyone, young and old, seeking to coalesce and affect public policy through citizen lobbying. The site offers a "Take Action" center, frequently updated Senior Alerts, complete interactive blogs, recent news articles and op-eds of particular interest to seniors, and a Senior Resource Center that helps direct senior citizens to an array of resources and interesting opportunities.
SSI president Dr. Lawrence A. Hunter described the Social Security Institute this way: "The Social Security Institute (SSI) is conceived in the proposition that seniority matters, not as a matter of right but as a matter of fact and experience. SSI believes dignity matters, security matters, prosperity matters and freedom matters to people of all ages but especially to senior citizens. SSI is dedicated to listening to America's seniors and speaking truth to power in Washington regardless of which political party holds power. SSI promotes conservative values and classically liberal ideals in its quest to advance the retirement security of today's seniors and the seniors of tomorrow. SSI seeks to be a Third Force in American Politics -- beyond liberal and conservative, beyond Republican and Democrat -- seniors allied for action."
Hunter also said, "SSI agrees with Thomas Jefferson that a little rebellion from time to time is a good thing. We hope to provide seniors a productive outlet for the rebel in them."
SSI's Mission Statement Reads: "The Social Security Institute (SSI) is a national, 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan seniors' advocacy organization working to promote the retirement security of today's seniors and the seniors of tomorrow. SSI's top policy priorities are to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Funds, prevent cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits, and protect seniors from health care rationing and other limitations on their access to health care."
SSI president Dr. Lawrence A. Hunter described the Social Security Institute this way: "The Social Security Institute (SSI) is conceived in the proposition that seniority matters, not as a matter of right but as a matter of fact and experience. SSI believes dignity matters, security matters, prosperity matters and freedom matters to people of all ages but especially to senior citizens. SSI is dedicated to listening to America's seniors and speaking truth to power in Washington regardless of which political party holds power. SSI promotes conservative values and classically liberal ideals in its quest to advance the retirement security of today's seniors and the seniors of tomorrow. SSI seeks to be a Third Force in American Politics -- beyond liberal and conservative, beyond Republican and Democrat -- seniors allied for action."
Hunter also said, "SSI agrees with Thomas Jefferson that a little rebellion from time to time is a good thing. We hope to provide seniors a productive outlet for the rebel in them."
SSI's Mission Statement Reads: "The Social Security Institute (SSI) is a national, 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan seniors' advocacy organization working to promote the retirement security of today's seniors and the seniors of tomorrow. SSI's top policy priorities are to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Funds, prevent cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits, and protect seniors from health care rationing and other limitations on their access to health care."
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Florida Studies Reveal Huge Increase in Cost of Illegal Immigration and Widespread Voter Dissatisfaction
/PRNewswire/ -- Simultaneous studies, released this week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), show soaring costs of illegal immigration in Florida and demonstrate strong voter objections to the burdens placed on them by illegal immigration. A new Zogby International poll of 801 likely voters across the state found that, by an overwhelming margin, Floridians believe that illegal immigration is harming their state. Their perceptions are rooted in reality. A separate FAIR study, the Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians found that providing education and health care to illegal aliens and their families, and incarcerating criminal illegal aliens, costs state taxpayers more than $3.8 billion annually, more than double the costs measured in 2005.
The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians found that taxpayers spend:
-- $3.4 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and the U.S.
born children of illegal immigrants.
-- $290 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens.
-- $90 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.
-- The total represents an annual cost to each of Florida's native-born
headed households of $678.
The cost study also determined that the illegal alien population in Florida is now 950,000 persons. This represents 7.3 percent of the national total illegal alien population, and it is the nation's fourth largest concentration of illegal aliens after California, Texas and New York. It is also about 5.2 percent of Florida's overall population.
The Zogby poll found that:
-- 71.3% of Florida voters say illegal immigration has a negative impact
on the state. Only 14.4% believe it has a positive impact on Florida.
-- 83.5% of Florida voters believe illegal aliens have a negative impact
on the state budget, versus only 7.9% who believe their impact is
positive.
-- 57.5% believe illegal immigration should be reduced through better
enforcement of immigration laws. Only 36% of Florida voters favor
amnesty or legalization for current illegal aliens.
-- 68.6% of Florida voters want worksite immigration enforcement to
continue. Only 21.1% support the Obama administration's decision to
curtail worksite enforcement.
"Voters in Florida, like voters everywhere, want their elected officials in Washington and Tallahassee to protect their interests, their jobs, and their tax dollars from the impact of mass illegal immigration," said Stein. "At a time when the Obama administration is intent on systematically dismantling immigration enforcement, and congressional leaders are considering a new round of amnesty legislation, voters in this key state are saying unequivocally that it is time political leaders stopped pandering to the illegal immigration lobby, and started enforcing laws that serve the interests of ordinary Americans."
The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians found that taxpayers spend:
-- $3.4 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and the U.S.
born children of illegal immigrants.
-- $290 million a year on unreimbursed health care for illegal aliens.
-- $90 million a year to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.
-- The total represents an annual cost to each of Florida's native-born
headed households of $678.
The cost study also determined that the illegal alien population in Florida is now 950,000 persons. This represents 7.3 percent of the national total illegal alien population, and it is the nation's fourth largest concentration of illegal aliens after California, Texas and New York. It is also about 5.2 percent of Florida's overall population.
The Zogby poll found that:
-- 71.3% of Florida voters say illegal immigration has a negative impact
on the state. Only 14.4% believe it has a positive impact on Florida.
-- 83.5% of Florida voters believe illegal aliens have a negative impact
on the state budget, versus only 7.9% who believe their impact is
positive.
-- 57.5% believe illegal immigration should be reduced through better
enforcement of immigration laws. Only 36% of Florida voters favor
amnesty or legalization for current illegal aliens.
-- 68.6% of Florida voters want worksite immigration enforcement to
continue. Only 21.1% support the Obama administration's decision to
curtail worksite enforcement.
"Voters in Florida, like voters everywhere, want their elected officials in Washington and Tallahassee to protect their interests, their jobs, and their tax dollars from the impact of mass illegal immigration," said Stein. "At a time when the Obama administration is intent on systematically dismantling immigration enforcement, and congressional leaders are considering a new round of amnesty legislation, voters in this key state are saying unequivocally that it is time political leaders stopped pandering to the illegal immigration lobby, and started enforcing laws that serve the interests of ordinary Americans."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Zogby/O'Leary Report Poll Finds Majority of American Voters Don't Fault U.S. Gun Laws for Mexican Drug Violence
/PRNewswire/ -- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that the Obama administration would like to resurrect the Clinton ban on semi-automatic firearms, as well as other gun control laws.
One of the reasons for bringing back these unpopular laws, according to Holder, is that Mexican drug cartels are becoming increasingly violent and warring with Mexican government troops. Holder says that some of the guns being used by the Mexican drug mafia are being obtained illegally from the United States.
Mexico is a country with a reputation for political corruption and a healthy disregard for the individual rights of its citizens. Still, Holder and the Obama administration think that limiting the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens is a cure for drug violence in Mexico.
However, according to a recent poll conducted by The O'Leary Report and Zogby International, a vast majority of the American voting public disagrees.
The poll, which was conducted March 20-23 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points, asked 4,523 likely voters:
"Mexican officials, gun control groups and officials at the Department of Homeland Security claim drug cartels are crossing the U.S. border in order to obtain guns illicitly. Others say that the Mexican drug cartels are equipped with military hardware including grenades, anti-tank missiles and mortars - all weapons that are not available to the American public. Which of the following do you think is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms?"
Sixty-five percent of voters say that the international black market is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms; while only 13.5 percent think these arms are coming from U.S. gun stores (3.5 percent think the arms are coming from somewhere else and 18 percent are not sure).
Among voters aged 18-29 years old, one of President Obama's strongest groups of supporters, 73 percent say international black market, and just six percent say U.S. gun stores (two percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
A strong majority of self-described Independent voters (66 percent) also say that the international black market is main source of arms for Mexican drug cartels, and only 12 percent say U.S. gun stores (four percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
One of the reasons for bringing back these unpopular laws, according to Holder, is that Mexican drug cartels are becoming increasingly violent and warring with Mexican government troops. Holder says that some of the guns being used by the Mexican drug mafia are being obtained illegally from the United States.
Mexico is a country with a reputation for political corruption and a healthy disregard for the individual rights of its citizens. Still, Holder and the Obama administration think that limiting the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens is a cure for drug violence in Mexico.
However, according to a recent poll conducted by The O'Leary Report and Zogby International, a vast majority of the American voting public disagrees.
The poll, which was conducted March 20-23 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points, asked 4,523 likely voters:
"Mexican officials, gun control groups and officials at the Department of Homeland Security claim drug cartels are crossing the U.S. border in order to obtain guns illicitly. Others say that the Mexican drug cartels are equipped with military hardware including grenades, anti-tank missiles and mortars - all weapons that are not available to the American public. Which of the following do you think is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms?"
Sixty-five percent of voters say that the international black market is the main source for Mexican drug cartel arms; while only 13.5 percent think these arms are coming from U.S. gun stores (3.5 percent think the arms are coming from somewhere else and 18 percent are not sure).
Among voters aged 18-29 years old, one of President Obama's strongest groups of supporters, 73 percent say international black market, and just six percent say U.S. gun stores (two percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
A strong majority of self-described Independent voters (66 percent) also say that the international black market is main source of arms for Mexican drug cartels, and only 12 percent say U.S. gun stores (four percent say somewhere else and 19 percent are not sure).
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Association for Healthcare Philanthropy Opposes Limits on Charitable Tax Deductions
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) today issued the following statement regarding limits on tax deductions for charitable donations proposed in the Obama Administration's budget:
The Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) opposes the proposal in the President's budget that would impose new limits on charitable tax deductions.
AHP applauds the President's overall efforts in the budget to revive the economy, reform health care, revise energy policy and tackle other important issues affecting the country.
However, the budget also contains a proposal that sends the wrong message at the wrong time to those who support charitable causes. It puts forward a scheme that would effectively devalue charitable gifts made by the very people who are in a position to make substantial donations at a time when they are sorely needed. For those who earn more than $250,000, the proposal would limit the federal tax deduction they may take for their generosity to 28 percent. Currently, they may claim up to a 35 percent deduction.
In these challenging economic times, charities and nonprofits already are finding it difficult to fulfill their altruistic missions because of reduced donations and resources. Yet, in times of economic trouble, it is charities and nonprofits that do much to augment the work of the federal, state and local government in meeting the needs of the American public through their vital programs and services. In fact, charities currently are being asked to provide even greater levels of assistance. The federal government, therefore, should seek ways to bolster charitable giving--as opposed to requiring charities to do more with less.
In fact, research published by the Congressional Budget Office from 1997, the Urban Institute from 2001, the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy from 2008 and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University from 2009 all state that giving is sensitive to price incentives provided by after-tax costs. The question that remains is: by how much?
A report by Indiana University "suggests that had these proposals been in place in 2006, total itemized charitable giving by households would have dropped by 2.1 percent." And that number fails to take into account the current large decline in America's personal wealth. Americans' generosity in support of nonprofit hospitals and health care systems is substantial, totaling $8.35 billion last year according to AHP's Report on Giving 2007. This report reveals an important insight concerning the importance of public backing for the nonprofit health care community: Almost 83 percent of all donors last year were individuals. Individuals provided 61 percent of all donations. Can American hospitals afford to lose 2.1 percent or more in contributions from these families?
Probably not. And, unfortunately, the growth rate of giving to the health care sector is slowing down and the number of donors is flat. According to a 2007 Chronicle of Philanthropy article, "Contributions to health-care institutions rose last year (2006) by 8.3 percent, adjusted for inflation, compared with a 12.9-percent rise from 2004 to 2005." The same conclusion was drawn from an AHP-sponsored study released in September 2008, by John Volpe, Ph.D., collegiate professor at the University of Maryland University College. In Economic Cycles and Charitable Giving Volpe concludes that a slowing of the growth in Gross Domestic Product and disposable personal income, as well as uncertainty over the economy are likely to contribute to weakness in charitable giving through 2009.
Yet such charitable giving is and will remain vital to the hospitals and systems to which it flows. According to the American Hospital Association (AHA) November 2008 Report on the Economic Crisis, the capital crunch is making it difficult and expensive for hospitals to finance facility and technology needs. The AHP Report on Giving indicates that more than 45 percent of charitable giving was put to use to upgrade infrastructure, including often long-overdue construction and renovation projects and equipment purchases. An additional 25 percent supported important functions such as community benefit programs, charitable care, research and teaching, and hospice, long-term and nursing care. About 14 percent went to general operations.
These accomplishments were achieved through fundraising and its outreach efforts to grateful families. While the Nation's health care needs are increasing, we must avoid creating obstacles that will diminish and discourage philanthropy.
The steep decline in personal wealth, especially if coupled with proposed limitations on tax deductions, make the outlook for philanthropy over the next 18-24 months bleak. For philanthropy to continue to fulfill its role in the American health care system, this is not the time to drastically change standards for fundraising.
Given the potential devastating impacts of this budget provision on charitable giving, AHP strongly opposes any provision that would impose new limits on charitable deductions. AHP is joined in this opinion by the Association for Fundraising Professionals (AFP).
The Association for Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) opposes the proposal in the President's budget that would impose new limits on charitable tax deductions.
AHP applauds the President's overall efforts in the budget to revive the economy, reform health care, revise energy policy and tackle other important issues affecting the country.
However, the budget also contains a proposal that sends the wrong message at the wrong time to those who support charitable causes. It puts forward a scheme that would effectively devalue charitable gifts made by the very people who are in a position to make substantial donations at a time when they are sorely needed. For those who earn more than $250,000, the proposal would limit the federal tax deduction they may take for their generosity to 28 percent. Currently, they may claim up to a 35 percent deduction.
In these challenging economic times, charities and nonprofits already are finding it difficult to fulfill their altruistic missions because of reduced donations and resources. Yet, in times of economic trouble, it is charities and nonprofits that do much to augment the work of the federal, state and local government in meeting the needs of the American public through their vital programs and services. In fact, charities currently are being asked to provide even greater levels of assistance. The federal government, therefore, should seek ways to bolster charitable giving--as opposed to requiring charities to do more with less.
In fact, research published by the Congressional Budget Office from 1997, the Urban Institute from 2001, the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy from 2008 and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University from 2009 all state that giving is sensitive to price incentives provided by after-tax costs. The question that remains is: by how much?
A report by Indiana University "suggests that had these proposals been in place in 2006, total itemized charitable giving by households would have dropped by 2.1 percent." And that number fails to take into account the current large decline in America's personal wealth. Americans' generosity in support of nonprofit hospitals and health care systems is substantial, totaling $8.35 billion last year according to AHP's Report on Giving 2007. This report reveals an important insight concerning the importance of public backing for the nonprofit health care community: Almost 83 percent of all donors last year were individuals. Individuals provided 61 percent of all donations. Can American hospitals afford to lose 2.1 percent or more in contributions from these families?
Probably not. And, unfortunately, the growth rate of giving to the health care sector is slowing down and the number of donors is flat. According to a 2007 Chronicle of Philanthropy article, "Contributions to health-care institutions rose last year (2006) by 8.3 percent, adjusted for inflation, compared with a 12.9-percent rise from 2004 to 2005." The same conclusion was drawn from an AHP-sponsored study released in September 2008, by John Volpe, Ph.D., collegiate professor at the University of Maryland University College. In Economic Cycles and Charitable Giving Volpe concludes that a slowing of the growth in Gross Domestic Product and disposable personal income, as well as uncertainty over the economy are likely to contribute to weakness in charitable giving through 2009.
Yet such charitable giving is and will remain vital to the hospitals and systems to which it flows. According to the American Hospital Association (AHA) November 2008 Report on the Economic Crisis, the capital crunch is making it difficult and expensive for hospitals to finance facility and technology needs. The AHP Report on Giving indicates that more than 45 percent of charitable giving was put to use to upgrade infrastructure, including often long-overdue construction and renovation projects and equipment purchases. An additional 25 percent supported important functions such as community benefit programs, charitable care, research and teaching, and hospice, long-term and nursing care. About 14 percent went to general operations.
These accomplishments were achieved through fundraising and its outreach efforts to grateful families. While the Nation's health care needs are increasing, we must avoid creating obstacles that will diminish and discourage philanthropy.
The steep decline in personal wealth, especially if coupled with proposed limitations on tax deductions, make the outlook for philanthropy over the next 18-24 months bleak. For philanthropy to continue to fulfill its role in the American health care system, this is not the time to drastically change standards for fundraising.
Given the potential devastating impacts of this budget provision on charitable giving, AHP strongly opposes any provision that would impose new limits on charitable deductions. AHP is joined in this opinion by the Association for Fundraising Professionals (AFP).
Thursday, February 26, 2009
2010 Budget Rings in New Era for Federal Government
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The American Federation of Government Employees today applauded the Obama Administration's 2010 fiscal budget and stands ready to increase services provided to the American public. "We are delighted to finally have the resources to run our agencies," said AFGE National President John Gage. "This budget is a welcome departure from the 'starve the beast' policies of the last eight years that sought to deprive government agencies and programs of the resources they needed to carry out their missions on behalf of the American people."
While the last eight years saw budgets that catered only to the interests of the wealthy and politically-connected contractors, this budget places the highest priorities on veterans; the elderly and the disabled who rely on Social Security; education; the safety of communities where federal prisons are located; science-based projects to protect the environment; housing assistance; and everyone who buys health insurance and uses health care, to name only a few.
"Although federal employees would prefer to have seen an increase in pay, the equivalent to the military, we recognize the severity of our nation's economic situation, including the crisis for public workers at the state and local level, and understand that only modest steps can be taken this year to close the remaining pay gap between the federal and non-federal salaries," continued Gage. "We also are pleased to see an emphasis on controlling health care costs in the years to come."
"Federal employees are genuinely committed to providing their fellow Americans with the highest quality services and protections. From the Department of Homeland Security's Border Patrol agents' efforts to protect the border to the Department of Labor's OSHA inspectors to the VA nurses and doctors - federal employees are so pleased to see that President Obama recognizes that understaffing is dangerous and self-defeating. They are thrilled at the prospect of additional resources for hiring staff who will be dedicated to serving the public interest," Gage said.
The 2010 budget goes even further, recognizing the harm done by Bush administration's privatization agenda. "Their ideological bias forced agencies to contract out regardless of cost or quality, and at the expense of the integrity of federal programs as well as public accountability. It looks like that may be coming to an end," said Gage.
"AFGE looks forward to this renewed opportunity to serve the American public," concluded Gage. "And we look forward to continuing our work with the Obama administration toward our shared goal of better government."
While the last eight years saw budgets that catered only to the interests of the wealthy and politically-connected contractors, this budget places the highest priorities on veterans; the elderly and the disabled who rely on Social Security; education; the safety of communities where federal prisons are located; science-based projects to protect the environment; housing assistance; and everyone who buys health insurance and uses health care, to name only a few.
"Although federal employees would prefer to have seen an increase in pay, the equivalent to the military, we recognize the severity of our nation's economic situation, including the crisis for public workers at the state and local level, and understand that only modest steps can be taken this year to close the remaining pay gap between the federal and non-federal salaries," continued Gage. "We also are pleased to see an emphasis on controlling health care costs in the years to come."
"Federal employees are genuinely committed to providing their fellow Americans with the highest quality services and protections. From the Department of Homeland Security's Border Patrol agents' efforts to protect the border to the Department of Labor's OSHA inspectors to the VA nurses and doctors - federal employees are so pleased to see that President Obama recognizes that understaffing is dangerous and self-defeating. They are thrilled at the prospect of additional resources for hiring staff who will be dedicated to serving the public interest," Gage said.
The 2010 budget goes even further, recognizing the harm done by Bush administration's privatization agenda. "Their ideological bias forced agencies to contract out regardless of cost or quality, and at the expense of the integrity of federal programs as well as public accountability. It looks like that may be coming to an end," said Gage.
"AFGE looks forward to this renewed opportunity to serve the American public," concluded Gage. "And we look forward to continuing our work with the Obama administration toward our shared goal of better government."
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Statement of Paul Helmke on Federal Government's Filing in Guns in Parks Litigation
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:
"Late Friday night, the United States Department of Justice filed a response to lawsuits filed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence as well as the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. The suits seek to enjoin and strike down a last-minute rule change by the Bush Administration's Interior Department which overturned sensible restrictions on concealed firearms in our national parks established by the Reagan Administration a quarter century ago. Allowing concealed guns into our historically safe parks was a potentially dangerous and ill-conceived idea. In our suit, we argue that the Bush Administration clearly violated laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, in promulgating the rule.
"Recently released documents from this case reveal that even senior officials in the Bush Administration recognized that the new rule was unnecessary, potentially dangerous, and promulgated in a way that federal environmental laws did not allow. We are disappointed that the new Administration's initial response has been to defend this rule in court, instead of recognizing that the Bush Administration acted illegally. We are confident that the new rule will be struck down in court."
"Late Friday night, the United States Department of Justice filed a response to lawsuits filed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence as well as the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. The suits seek to enjoin and strike down a last-minute rule change by the Bush Administration's Interior Department which overturned sensible restrictions on concealed firearms in our national parks established by the Reagan Administration a quarter century ago. Allowing concealed guns into our historically safe parks was a potentially dangerous and ill-conceived idea. In our suit, we argue that the Bush Administration clearly violated laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, in promulgating the rule.
"Recently released documents from this case reveal that even senior officials in the Bush Administration recognized that the new rule was unnecessary, potentially dangerous, and promulgated in a way that federal environmental laws did not allow. We are disappointed that the new Administration's initial response has been to defend this rule in court, instead of recognizing that the Bush Administration acted illegally. We are confident that the new rule will be struck down in court."
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
New Poll Finds Cuban-American Democrats Support Sanctions Against the Cuban Regime
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Cuban-American voters from both political parties strongly support U.S. trade and travel sanctions against the Cuban regime, according to a new poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates.
Overall, the poll found that 72% of Cuban-Americans support the continuation of the current U.S. trade embargo and 69% support the prohibition of tourist travel to the island. Amongst Cuban-American Democrats -- which the poll specifically over-sampled -- a near majority, 49%, support the continuation of the trade embargo and a majority, 58%, support current prohibitions on travel.
"The message to lawmakers and the Administration is clear: the Cuban-American community favors the continuation of U.S. sanctions towards the Cuban regime until a process of democratic reform begins," said Mauricio Claver-Carone, Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy, Corp., which commissioned the poll. "Support for freedom and democracy in Cuba is non-partisan. Whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, the Cuban-American electorate continues to speak with one voice when it comes to Cuba policy," added Claver-Carone.
Other results of the poll include:
-- 80% of Cuban-American voters do not think Raul Castro will make
democratic reforms in Cuba. Among Democrats 65% do not think he will
make reforms.
-- 69% think that U.S. tourism should not be authorized to vacation in
Cuba until the Cuban regime releases all political prisoners, respects
basic human rights and schedules free elections. Among Democrats a
majority (58%) agree that U.S. tourism should not be authorized.
-- 69% of Cuban-American voters believe that the Cuban regime should
remain on the U.S. government's list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Among Democrats 52% believe that the Cuban regime should remain on the
list.
The poll was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on January 25-26, 2009 among 500 Cuban-American registered voters throughout Florida and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5%. The majority of Cuban-American voters reside in South Florida.
This poll is the most recent action in a broader campaign that began with a letter to President Barack Obama published in the Special Inaugural edition of a leading Washington, D.C. publication. The letter encourages President Obama's advocacy on behalf of Cuban political prisoners and highlights the conditions in U.S. law prior to modifications in U.S. policy, such as the legalization of political parties, an independent media and labor unions by the Cuban authorities.
Overall, the poll found that 72% of Cuban-Americans support the continuation of the current U.S. trade embargo and 69% support the prohibition of tourist travel to the island. Amongst Cuban-American Democrats -- which the poll specifically over-sampled -- a near majority, 49%, support the continuation of the trade embargo and a majority, 58%, support current prohibitions on travel.
"The message to lawmakers and the Administration is clear: the Cuban-American community favors the continuation of U.S. sanctions towards the Cuban regime until a process of democratic reform begins," said Mauricio Claver-Carone, Executive Director of Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy, Corp., which commissioned the poll. "Support for freedom and democracy in Cuba is non-partisan. Whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, the Cuban-American electorate continues to speak with one voice when it comes to Cuba policy," added Claver-Carone.
Other results of the poll include:
-- 80% of Cuban-American voters do not think Raul Castro will make
democratic reforms in Cuba. Among Democrats 65% do not think he will
make reforms.
-- 69% think that U.S. tourism should not be authorized to vacation in
Cuba until the Cuban regime releases all political prisoners, respects
basic human rights and schedules free elections. Among Democrats a
majority (58%) agree that U.S. tourism should not be authorized.
-- 69% of Cuban-American voters believe that the Cuban regime should
remain on the U.S. government's list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Among Democrats 52% believe that the Cuban regime should remain on the
list.
The poll was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on January 25-26, 2009 among 500 Cuban-American registered voters throughout Florida and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5%. The majority of Cuban-American voters reside in South Florida.
This poll is the most recent action in a broader campaign that began with a letter to President Barack Obama published in the Special Inaugural edition of a leading Washington, D.C. publication. The letter encourages President Obama's advocacy on behalf of Cuban political prisoners and highlights the conditions in U.S. law prior to modifications in U.S. policy, such as the legalization of political parties, an independent media and labor unions by the Cuban authorities.
Friday, January 23, 2009
U.S. bailout package will spark inflation and shift the burden to foreign investors: CIBC World Markets
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- CIBC (CM: TSX; NYSE) - To pay for its multi-trillion dollar bailout and stimulus packages, the Obama administration will print money at an unprecedented rate, a course that will drive up inflation and drive down the greenback while shifting a large part of the financial burden onto foreign investors, finds a new report from CIBC World Markets.
The report predicts that like Argentina in the late 1980s and Zimbabwe today, the U.S. government will simply create more money to fund its plans. "If the central bank prints it, someone will spend it," says Jeff Rubin, chief economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets. "Already U.S. money supply is growing at a nearly 20 per cent rate in the last three months and the printing presses are just warming up. And there's no shortage of more troubled assets to monetize along with $1.5 trillion-plus federal deficits to keep money supply growth chugging along in the future.
"As it buys up spread product, the Fed will leave Treasuries to be mopped up by foreigners. Since outsiders, like the People's Bank of China, now own over 50 per cent of America's debt, there has never been a better time to reflate. Why default on your taxpayers when you can default on someone else's? A 10-year Treasury bond will, of course, mature at par, but who's to say the greenback won't sink 40 per cent against the Yuan over its term like it did against the Yen between 1971 and 1981?"
Mr. Rubin notes that while the prospect of reflation may seem incredulous on the cusp of negative U.S. CPI numbers, past deficits that were a mere fraction of what they are today in relation to the size of the American economy, were readily monetized. And without fail, that monetization led to an explosive bout of subsequent inflation.
"The huge World War II deficits saw inflation peak at almost 20 per cent in 1947," adds Mr. Rubin. "When the printing presses were turned up to pay for the Korean War, inflation moved from negative territory to over nine per cent within the space of nine months in the early 1950s. And when Arthur Burns greased the Fed's presses after the Vietnam War, inflation soon made a triumphant return back to double-digit territory.
"Headline U.S. CPI inflation will grab a negative handle in the next few months but it will be running north of four per cent in less than a year."
Adding to these inflationary forces in the next year will be increased pressure on oil prices. While global demand is expected to be down about one per cent in 2009, oil supply is also declining. The plunge in oil prices caused by the recession has put the brakes on a number of new supply projects that were expected to address the depletion loss of nearly four million barrels a day this year alone.
"The IEA (International Energy Agency) recently estimated that the industry will have to spend well over half a trillion dollars annually to meet future demand and counter depletion," says Mr. Rubin. "No one is going to finance those money-losing mega-investments at oil prices anywhere near $40 per barrel. If yesterday's record high prices haven't spurred supply growth, what chances do oil prices a third or a quarter of those record levels have?"
A year ago, Mr. Rubin estimated that production would grow from about 86 million barrels per day in 2008 to around 88 million by decade's end, based on data for 200 pending new projects. However, recent announcements of project cancellations and postponements not only cancel out the expected two million barrel per day increase in global production by 2010, but they are likely to actually drive production down a million barrels per day below last year's levels.
In Canada, a region the IEA expects will be the single largest source of new crude supply, almost three times as important as Saudi Arabia over the next 20 years, cancellations or delays in recent months have already affected about one million barrels per day of planned oil sands capacity. Now, rather than grow by close to 400,000 barrels per day by 2010, total Canadian production is likely to rise by only a third of that.
"That's only the tip of the iceberg since the vast majority of cancellations have been on projects whose first flow dates are well after 2010," adds Mr. Rubin. "If oil prices were to stay at current levels, production, instead of plateauing around 88 million barrels per day by 2012 as we had previously forecast, would decline at an accelerating pace between now and 2015. By 2015, production would decline to around 76 million barrels per day, a level of roughly 10 per cent lower than last year's level. Unlike past oil shocks, there is no longer any newly discovered $10 per barrel North Sea oil to meet a rebound in demand."
He notes that higher prices will ultimately change that supply outlook by reversing some of the cancellations announced in the wake of oil's price plunge. Global demand snapped back at around a three per cent pace after the two declines in oil consumption seen in the early 1980s. Even a 2-2 1/2 per cent bounce back would leave the world facing even tighter supply conditions than it did in 2007 when oil prices moved from $60 to $100 per barrel.
"Back then, demand was about 1.5 million barrels per day more than supply. This imbalance, not only led to a very rapid inventory drawdown, but also attracted speculative activity in oil markets. By our estimates, we expect to see an even larger imbalance, almost two million barrels per day, between recovering demand and shrinking supply as early as 2010.
"When that happens, global oil inventories will plunge, and global oil prices will once again spike. That may well reverse some of the supply destruction that is currently taking place, but not before world oil prices print triple-digit levels again."
The report predicts that like Argentina in the late 1980s and Zimbabwe today, the U.S. government will simply create more money to fund its plans. "If the central bank prints it, someone will spend it," says Jeff Rubin, chief economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets. "Already U.S. money supply is growing at a nearly 20 per cent rate in the last three months and the printing presses are just warming up. And there's no shortage of more troubled assets to monetize along with $1.5 trillion-plus federal deficits to keep money supply growth chugging along in the future.
"As it buys up spread product, the Fed will leave Treasuries to be mopped up by foreigners. Since outsiders, like the People's Bank of China, now own over 50 per cent of America's debt, there has never been a better time to reflate. Why default on your taxpayers when you can default on someone else's? A 10-year Treasury bond will, of course, mature at par, but who's to say the greenback won't sink 40 per cent against the Yuan over its term like it did against the Yen between 1971 and 1981?"
Mr. Rubin notes that while the prospect of reflation may seem incredulous on the cusp of negative U.S. CPI numbers, past deficits that were a mere fraction of what they are today in relation to the size of the American economy, were readily monetized. And without fail, that monetization led to an explosive bout of subsequent inflation.
"The huge World War II deficits saw inflation peak at almost 20 per cent in 1947," adds Mr. Rubin. "When the printing presses were turned up to pay for the Korean War, inflation moved from negative territory to over nine per cent within the space of nine months in the early 1950s. And when Arthur Burns greased the Fed's presses after the Vietnam War, inflation soon made a triumphant return back to double-digit territory.
"Headline U.S. CPI inflation will grab a negative handle in the next few months but it will be running north of four per cent in less than a year."
Adding to these inflationary forces in the next year will be increased pressure on oil prices. While global demand is expected to be down about one per cent in 2009, oil supply is also declining. The plunge in oil prices caused by the recession has put the brakes on a number of new supply projects that were expected to address the depletion loss of nearly four million barrels a day this year alone.
"The IEA (International Energy Agency) recently estimated that the industry will have to spend well over half a trillion dollars annually to meet future demand and counter depletion," says Mr. Rubin. "No one is going to finance those money-losing mega-investments at oil prices anywhere near $40 per barrel. If yesterday's record high prices haven't spurred supply growth, what chances do oil prices a third or a quarter of those record levels have?"
A year ago, Mr. Rubin estimated that production would grow from about 86 million barrels per day in 2008 to around 88 million by decade's end, based on data for 200 pending new projects. However, recent announcements of project cancellations and postponements not only cancel out the expected two million barrel per day increase in global production by 2010, but they are likely to actually drive production down a million barrels per day below last year's levels.
In Canada, a region the IEA expects will be the single largest source of new crude supply, almost three times as important as Saudi Arabia over the next 20 years, cancellations or delays in recent months have already affected about one million barrels per day of planned oil sands capacity. Now, rather than grow by close to 400,000 barrels per day by 2010, total Canadian production is likely to rise by only a third of that.
"That's only the tip of the iceberg since the vast majority of cancellations have been on projects whose first flow dates are well after 2010," adds Mr. Rubin. "If oil prices were to stay at current levels, production, instead of plateauing around 88 million barrels per day by 2012 as we had previously forecast, would decline at an accelerating pace between now and 2015. By 2015, production would decline to around 76 million barrels per day, a level of roughly 10 per cent lower than last year's level. Unlike past oil shocks, there is no longer any newly discovered $10 per barrel North Sea oil to meet a rebound in demand."
He notes that higher prices will ultimately change that supply outlook by reversing some of the cancellations announced in the wake of oil's price plunge. Global demand snapped back at around a three per cent pace after the two declines in oil consumption seen in the early 1980s. Even a 2-2 1/2 per cent bounce back would leave the world facing even tighter supply conditions than it did in 2007 when oil prices moved from $60 to $100 per barrel.
"Back then, demand was about 1.5 million barrels per day more than supply. This imbalance, not only led to a very rapid inventory drawdown, but also attracted speculative activity in oil markets. By our estimates, we expect to see an even larger imbalance, almost two million barrels per day, between recovering demand and shrinking supply as early as 2010.
"When that happens, global oil inventories will plunge, and global oil prices will once again spike. That may well reverse some of the supply destruction that is currently taking place, but not before world oil prices print triple-digit levels again."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
