The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act, specifically the individual mandate upon which the program rests, by a vote of 5 to 4. They issued their decision this morning. As summarized by Mike Sachs at the Huffington Post: "The controlling opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power." Roberts' vote totally surprised me...my money had been on an overturn of the individual mandate and potential gutting of the law. (At least I called Justice Kennedy's vote correctly in the last post; he voted with the right-wing justices.)
As the President said in his comments today: this is a victory "for people all over this country". An overturn of this crucial legislation would have been devastating. We would not have a reasonable chance at extending medical coverage for Americans for another generation. In her remarks after the ruling, Nancy Pelosi paid tribute to Ted Kennedy who worked tirelessly during his life to bring universal health care to this country - promoting the concept of health care as a right, not a privilege. Although she didn't mention herself, the smiling former Speaker Pelosi had been instrumental in holding Democrats together and getting the legislation through the House in 2010.
By a 7-2 vote, the Court struck down the provision of the Health Care Reform Act that would have kicked states out of the Medicaid program if they did not subscribe to the extension of Medicaid provided by the law. States stand to gain enormously from the legislation - the Federal government provides at least 90% of the funding for Medicaid and significant net savings accrue to the states since they will no longer have to cover medical expenses for the currently uninsured. In fact, the only reason for states to deny the extended Medicaid coverage to the people of their state is simple mean-spirited ideology. Unlikely and unreasonable as it seems, some states may opt out. The legislators in these states will be supported by people who really don't understand the economics or the benefits, by miscellaneous business groups who prefer not to spend on health care, by people who would protect tax breaks for the rich at the expense of services for the less well off and, let's face it, by those bigots who don't want a black President to appear powerful and those who still believe in the racist stereotypes of welfare recipients.
The post-ruling sour grapes and promises to repeal health care reform from Republicans made them seem as ridiculous on health care as they've been on privatization of Social Security and ending Medicare as we know it. Of course, this Supreme Court decision may be for nought if the Republicans take control of the White House and Senate in the November elections. In spite of today's good news, the race between Romney and Obama remains tight. Every vote will count this November. With Romney pledging to repeal health care reform, you have some idea of what's at stake.
So what made Chief Justice Roberts side with the four moderate and liberal justices on the court? David Cole's post in The Nation may have gotten it right: "In part, the outcome reflects the fact that the truly radical position in this dispute was that of the challengers. Even very conservative lower court judges...had concluded that the law was valid ....But in addition, I cannot but think that at the back of Roberts’s mind was the Court’s institutional standing. Had the law been struck down on 'party lines,' the Court’s reputation would be seriously undermined....Today’s result, which upholds the actions of the democratically elected branches on a major piece of social welfare legislation that affects us all against a challenge that was always a real long shot, driven more by politics than legal principle, may help repair the Court’s tarnished image."
So that was this morning. This afternoon, I enjoyed watching Italy defeat Germany in a Eurocup 2012 semi-final. They move on to the finals which will be played Sunday. Yes, it was a very good day.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Today's Mixed Bag
The Supreme Court issued two important decisions today - one on Arizona's anti-immigrant law S. B. 1070 and the other on Montana's state law banning political contributions from corporations, the Corrupt Practices Act.
First the really bad news. SCOTUS summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court's ruling that held Montana's century old ban on corporate political donations to be constitutional and not in violation of Citizens United. The vote was the same 5-4 as Citizens United with the conservative majority putting to the lie the argument that conservatives support states' rights. I guess that only applies to those rights that conservatives agree with - such as the unlimited, anonymous corporate donations to political candidates and parties which they astoundingly classified as "free speech". As summarized in a HuffingtonPost blog today by correspondent Mike Sacks: "By summarily reversing the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the justices refused to reconcile their sweeping statement of free speech principles in Citizens United with the real-world facts -- from Montana's history to today's super PACs -- put forward by Montana and its supporters to demonstrate that independent expenditures do, indeed, corrupt or create the appearance of corruption."
The only real answer to Citizens United is a constitutional amendment. Sen. Bernie Sanders of VT has proposed a constitutional amendment to do just that. You can find a petition supporting this amendment at his website. Another option would be to legislate disclosure requirements but the odds of getting this through the Republican-held House and the Republican-throttled Senate are negligible. These steps will take time and will do nothing to stop the massive flow of anonymous money into the 2012 elections. We'll have to put up with the negative, often erroneous attacks against Democratic candidates across the country. We saw what this massive amount of Super Pac and corporate money could do in Wisconsin's failed recall election. And it is not stopping any time soon. Sen Sherrod Brown of Ohio, for example, has been the target of more than 10 million dollars trying to unseat him. With 75-80% of elections decided by the money spent, things do not look good for November.
Now for the kinda bad news. In a 5-4 vote, with Kennedy joining the moderate and liberal justices, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality, at least temporarily and on a technicality, of the "papers please" provision of Arizona's anti-immigrant law S.B. 1070. SCOTUS did strike down other parts of the law that "made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be present and to seek employment in Arizona...[and]..authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of anyone they had probable cause to believe had committed a deportable offense." These provisions were found to violate the Federal government's authority to regulate immigration.
What is amazing is that four justices (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts) were content with allowing some or all of the provisions of this profoundly offensive and discriminatory legislation to stand. It is clear that civil rights will have some tough sledding in the coming years as these radical activist justices rewrite what it means to be an American and what it means to live in a democracy.
At least Kennedy had the sense to see how bad the Arizona law was. He will be the deciding vote on the Health Care Reform Act (probably this Thursday) but I hold little hope for him to act as the moderate swing vote in this crucial decision. I'm afraid that his Republican/corporate leanings (Florida 2000 recount, Citizens United) will kick in and Obama's signature legislative victory will be sundered.
The most likely provision to destroy the health care legislation is the individual mandate. Quick: who first proposed the individual mandate? If you said Republicans, you would join the 2% of Americans who know this. It was first proposed by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation and supported by numerous Republicans over the years - including Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. In an insightful article today, "young Turk" Cenk Uygur calls the mandate the "perfect symbol of the central mistake of the Obama administration." But that's for a discussion on another day.
First the really bad news. SCOTUS summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court's ruling that held Montana's century old ban on corporate political donations to be constitutional and not in violation of Citizens United. The vote was the same 5-4 as Citizens United with the conservative majority putting to the lie the argument that conservatives support states' rights. I guess that only applies to those rights that conservatives agree with - such as the unlimited, anonymous corporate donations to political candidates and parties which they astoundingly classified as "free speech". As summarized in a HuffingtonPost blog today by correspondent Mike Sacks: "By summarily reversing the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the justices refused to reconcile their sweeping statement of free speech principles in Citizens United with the real-world facts -- from Montana's history to today's super PACs -- put forward by Montana and its supporters to demonstrate that independent expenditures do, indeed, corrupt or create the appearance of corruption."
The only real answer to Citizens United is a constitutional amendment. Sen. Bernie Sanders of VT has proposed a constitutional amendment to do just that. You can find a petition supporting this amendment at his website. Another option would be to legislate disclosure requirements but the odds of getting this through the Republican-held House and the Republican-throttled Senate are negligible. These steps will take time and will do nothing to stop the massive flow of anonymous money into the 2012 elections. We'll have to put up with the negative, often erroneous attacks against Democratic candidates across the country. We saw what this massive amount of Super Pac and corporate money could do in Wisconsin's failed recall election. And it is not stopping any time soon. Sen Sherrod Brown of Ohio, for example, has been the target of more than 10 million dollars trying to unseat him. With 75-80% of elections decided by the money spent, things do not look good for November.
Now for the kinda bad news. In a 5-4 vote, with Kennedy joining the moderate and liberal justices, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality, at least temporarily and on a technicality, of the "papers please" provision of Arizona's anti-immigrant law S.B. 1070. SCOTUS did strike down other parts of the law that "made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be present and to seek employment in Arizona...[and]..authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of anyone they had probable cause to believe had committed a deportable offense." These provisions were found to violate the Federal government's authority to regulate immigration.
What is amazing is that four justices (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts) were content with allowing some or all of the provisions of this profoundly offensive and discriminatory legislation to stand. It is clear that civil rights will have some tough sledding in the coming years as these radical activist justices rewrite what it means to be an American and what it means to live in a democracy.
At least Kennedy had the sense to see how bad the Arizona law was. He will be the deciding vote on the Health Care Reform Act (probably this Thursday) but I hold little hope for him to act as the moderate swing vote in this crucial decision. I'm afraid that his Republican/corporate leanings (Florida 2000 recount, Citizens United) will kick in and Obama's signature legislative victory will be sundered.
The most likely provision to destroy the health care legislation is the individual mandate. Quick: who first proposed the individual mandate? If you said Republicans, you would join the 2% of Americans who know this. It was first proposed by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation and supported by numerous Republicans over the years - including Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. In an insightful article today, "young Turk" Cenk Uygur calls the mandate the "perfect symbol of the central mistake of the Obama administration." But that's for a discussion on another day.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Florida 2000 Redux
A formidable legal battle is taking shape in the key battleground state of Florida. At stake is Florida's 29 electoral votes and, quite possibly, the ever-tightening 2012 Presidential election. Florida's Republican governor Rick Scott has ordered a purge from the voter rolls of up to 180,000 supposed non-citizens. As happened in Florida's 2000 purge of alleged felons, mistakes will be made, eligible voters will be eliminated from the voter rolls and turned away at the voting booth.
The political organization People for the American Way summarizes the impact of Florida's 2000 pre-election purge this way: "The state that ultimately decided the election for George W. Bush by a mere 537 votes, hired a firm to purge ex-felons -- who had lost their right to vote according to state law -- from the voter file. But the data match was so sloppy that countless eligible voters, mostly African American, were scrubbed from the file and turned away from the polls on Election Day."
It's not too different this time around...more than 60% of the "suspect" voters are African-American or have Hispanic surnames. Considering Florida's flawed 2000 purge, the number of potential errors is staggering. As with the Florida voter ID laws, this is clearly a partisan attempt to disenfranchise minority voters who typically vote Democratic.
Both the Federal Government and the State of Florida have filed lawsuits in the case. As reported in by Janell Ross in a June 11 Huffington Post blog: "The Justice Department said it will sue Florida in federal court for violating two federal laws that prevent states from suppressing voters [the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1993 Voter Registration Act]....Hours earlier, Florida filed a lawsuit...against the ... U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accusing the agency of denying access to a federal database with information about immigrants." You really have to admire the chutzpah of these Florida Republicans - blaming the Federal Government for causing them to violate the law! There is one bright spot in all this: so far all but one of the 67 county election supervisors have "refused to participate [in the voter purge], citing errors in the state's list of suspected non-citizens."
I'm not sure which is the worse assault on our democracy - the unlimited, anonymous cash unleashed by the Citizens United decision or the organized, blatant effort at voter suppression by Republican governors and legislators. One thing seems clear, though: Florida's latest gambit is taking voter suppression to the next level.
The political organization People for the American Way summarizes the impact of Florida's 2000 pre-election purge this way: "The state that ultimately decided the election for George W. Bush by a mere 537 votes, hired a firm to purge ex-felons -- who had lost their right to vote according to state law -- from the voter file. But the data match was so sloppy that countless eligible voters, mostly African American, were scrubbed from the file and turned away from the polls on Election Day."
It's not too different this time around...more than 60% of the "suspect" voters are African-American or have Hispanic surnames. Considering Florida's flawed 2000 purge, the number of potential errors is staggering. As with the Florida voter ID laws, this is clearly a partisan attempt to disenfranchise minority voters who typically vote Democratic.
Both the Federal Government and the State of Florida have filed lawsuits in the case. As reported in by Janell Ross in a June 11 Huffington Post blog: "The Justice Department said it will sue Florida in federal court for violating two federal laws that prevent states from suppressing voters [the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1993 Voter Registration Act]....Hours earlier, Florida filed a lawsuit...against the ... U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accusing the agency of denying access to a federal database with information about immigrants." You really have to admire the chutzpah of these Florida Republicans - blaming the Federal Government for causing them to violate the law! There is one bright spot in all this: so far all but one of the 67 county election supervisors have "refused to participate [in the voter purge], citing errors in the state's list of suspected non-citizens."
I'm not sure which is the worse assault on our democracy - the unlimited, anonymous cash unleashed by the Citizens United decision or the organized, blatant effort at voter suppression by Republican governors and legislators. One thing seems clear, though: Florida's latest gambit is taking voter suppression to the next level.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Rio + 20
Twenty years ago, the United Nations held a major conference in Rio de Janeiro to address various ecological and development issues - among them, global climate change, alternatives to fossil fuels, the development of public transportation and the growing scarcity of water. Several framework documents came from this "Earth Summit". The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change led directly to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Another was the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which proposed 27 principles to guide sustainable development through the coming decades.
While most are familiar with the Kyoto Protocol (and the United States' shameful non-signatory status), the principles of the Rio Declaration are more general and not as well known. Two of the key principles from the 1992 Earth Summit are: Principle 1 ("Human beings are at the centre of concern for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.") and Principle 25 ("Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.")
The "Rio + 20" conference on sustainable development will be held in Rio de Janeiro from June 20 to June 22. Whether this Rio conference will have more success than the first on changing the behavior of nations is debatable. The UN recently assessed progress on 90 of the most important environmental goals. The bleak results: just 4 of the goals showed "significant progress" (the ozone layer, the removal of lead from fuel, increasing access to improved water supplies, and boosting research to reduce pollution of the marine environment.) Little or no progress was detected for 24 of the goals. This "little/no progress" list included climate change.
Put that assessment beside a study reported in the June 6 issue of Nature. The study warned that we are approaching a climatic tipping point with irreversible consequences. As summarized in a blog by Beth Buczynski: "The researchers say a combination of variables are forcing the planet toward irreversible biological changes, including exploding global population, rapidly rising temperatures and the clearance of more than 40 percent of Earth’s surface for urban development or agriculture. They also warn that ignoring these changes, and our role in fast-tracking them, is a dangerous gamble."
This is what is at stake and this is Rio + 20's challenge. Hopefully the climate change deniers, the "drill-baby-drillers" and the bright lights such as those North Carolina legislators that are proposing legislation to tell scientists how to perform science will some day get the message before it really is too late.
While most are familiar with the Kyoto Protocol (and the United States' shameful non-signatory status), the principles of the Rio Declaration are more general and not as well known. Two of the key principles from the 1992 Earth Summit are: Principle 1 ("Human beings are at the centre of concern for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.") and Principle 25 ("Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.")
The "Rio + 20" conference on sustainable development will be held in Rio de Janeiro from June 20 to June 22. Whether this Rio conference will have more success than the first on changing the behavior of nations is debatable. The UN recently assessed progress on 90 of the most important environmental goals. The bleak results: just 4 of the goals showed "significant progress" (the ozone layer, the removal of lead from fuel, increasing access to improved water supplies, and boosting research to reduce pollution of the marine environment.) Little or no progress was detected for 24 of the goals. This "little/no progress" list included climate change.
Put that assessment beside a study reported in the June 6 issue of Nature. The study warned that we are approaching a climatic tipping point with irreversible consequences. As summarized in a blog by Beth Buczynski: "The researchers say a combination of variables are forcing the planet toward irreversible biological changes, including exploding global population, rapidly rising temperatures and the clearance of more than 40 percent of Earth’s surface for urban development or agriculture. They also warn that ignoring these changes, and our role in fast-tracking them, is a dangerous gamble."
This is what is at stake and this is Rio + 20's challenge. Hopefully the climate change deniers, the "drill-baby-drillers" and the bright lights such as those North Carolina legislators that are proposing legislation to tell scientists how to perform science will some day get the message before it really is too late.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
A Trip to France
I recently returned from a vacation in the south of France, easily one of the most beautiful regions on the planet. Besides the markets and cafes, the sun and sea, the mountains and fields, the hilltop villages and historical cities, I got a brief glimpse of European politics.
The French had just elected Socialist Francois Hollande as their President, rejecting the center-right politics of the previous President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and sending a resounding "no" to the rest of Europe on the austerity program favored by the current leaders of, for example, the UK and Germany - austerity measures that have not had any positive effect whatsoever on the economic recovery in Europe.
As part of his campaign, Hollande also committed to an early withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan. French troops will be leaving by the end of this year rather than next year as had been the plan under Sarkozy. Would that our own President showed such wisdom.
Across the channel in the UK, Labour picked up numerous seats in the May local council elections from the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat allies. Since their election to power in May 2010, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition has been hard at work cutting services, increasing tuitions,and generally screwing up the British economy in the name of deficiti reduction. Voters across the UK gave them their preliminary report card on May 3.
Now a single national election in France and some local elections in the UK may not be a sign that the swing towards the right has finally reached its furthest point this cycle. And it certainly will not have as big an impact here on the deficit reduction crowd that refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy or to cut bloated military spending. Still it is a sign of hope that perhaps some countries will be taking steps that actually will help resolve the ongoing global economic crisis.
Another interesting contrast with American politics was in the TV political advertising. After the Presidential election is over and after the President announces his Cabinet, the French go to the polls to elect their legislature. What I saw on TV was a brand of advertising very different from that in the US. The candidates and parties actually talked about their policies in brief statements. They talked about what they were for and what they would do. There wasn't any haranguing and no sign of the negativity so common here in the US. Who can ever forget the "swift boating" of John Kerry? Hell, the 2004 US elections created a whole new word for slime ball politics. (The French legislative elections are ongoing today and we'll need to see if a Legislature able to work with their new President will be elected. I hope they've seen how useless a split government here has been the past year and a half.)
Anyway, it was a refreshing contrast to American politics. 2012 will have the honor of being the most expensive, least transparent and potentially most negative election in our history. But first a shout out to SCOTUS for Citizens United. This is perhaps the most undemocratic and embarassing decision ever rendered in what is supposed to be the world's leading democracy - "corporations are persons; spending unlimited money is free speech". Maybe the only way real election reform will happen in the US is if enough people get so disgusted with our current methods of politicking that we get a constitutional amendment to address the issue. It will not happen in time for this election but maybe future generations will look back at Citizens United as the last straw in our trend toward creating an oligarchy.
The French had just elected Socialist Francois Hollande as their President, rejecting the center-right politics of the previous President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and sending a resounding "no" to the rest of Europe on the austerity program favored by the current leaders of, for example, the UK and Germany - austerity measures that have not had any positive effect whatsoever on the economic recovery in Europe.
As part of his campaign, Hollande also committed to an early withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan. French troops will be leaving by the end of this year rather than next year as had been the plan under Sarkozy. Would that our own President showed such wisdom.
Across the channel in the UK, Labour picked up numerous seats in the May local council elections from the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat allies. Since their election to power in May 2010, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition has been hard at work cutting services, increasing tuitions,and generally screwing up the British economy in the name of deficiti reduction. Voters across the UK gave them their preliminary report card on May 3.
Now a single national election in France and some local elections in the UK may not be a sign that the swing towards the right has finally reached its furthest point this cycle. And it certainly will not have as big an impact here on the deficit reduction crowd that refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy or to cut bloated military spending. Still it is a sign of hope that perhaps some countries will be taking steps that actually will help resolve the ongoing global economic crisis.
Another interesting contrast with American politics was in the TV political advertising. After the Presidential election is over and after the President announces his Cabinet, the French go to the polls to elect their legislature. What I saw on TV was a brand of advertising very different from that in the US. The candidates and parties actually talked about their policies in brief statements. They talked about what they were for and what they would do. There wasn't any haranguing and no sign of the negativity so common here in the US. Who can ever forget the "swift boating" of John Kerry? Hell, the 2004 US elections created a whole new word for slime ball politics. (The French legislative elections are ongoing today and we'll need to see if a Legislature able to work with their new President will be elected. I hope they've seen how useless a split government here has been the past year and a half.)
Anyway, it was a refreshing contrast to American politics. 2012 will have the honor of being the most expensive, least transparent and potentially most negative election in our history. But first a shout out to SCOTUS for Citizens United. This is perhaps the most undemocratic and embarassing decision ever rendered in what is supposed to be the world's leading democracy - "corporations are persons; spending unlimited money is free speech". Maybe the only way real election reform will happen in the US is if enough people get so disgusted with our current methods of politicking that we get a constitutional amendment to address the issue. It will not happen in time for this election but maybe future generations will look back at Citizens United as the last straw in our trend toward creating an oligarchy.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Not Even Close
In the end, the money prevailed. With the aid of huge amounts of third party
"Citizens United" cash and with strong national Republican Party support and
cash, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker survived Tuesday's recall election.
Republican spent nearly 7 times what Demcrats did with tens of millions coming from out-of-state conservative groups with deep pockets.
And so the Republican governor who gutted public labor union rights, repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Act, and turned down Federal stimulus monies for high speed rail was an easy victor. The final vote wasn't even close (53% - 47%). This happened in spite of the grass roots effort mounted by Wisconsin unions and others to stage the historic recall - with more than 1 million signatures collected for his recall. (There is one small light in all this: one Republican state senator lost his seat and this should shift control of the Wisconsin Senate to the Democrats. It's too close too call as of this posting and will probably require a recount.)
With the flood of billionaire and corporate wealth unleashed by Citizens United, the handwriting is on the wall for the November elections. It's been there since the Tea Party victories in the mid-term elections - the first elections since the democracy-challenged SCOTUS rendered its infamous Citizens United decision. Combined with the organized voter suppression effort by Republicans in states under their control (including nearly all of the so-called battleground states), this is pointing to an ominous November for Democrats.
Bluntly put: unless the Democrats do a much better job of framing the narrative for the upcoming elections, the short-lived Democratic control of at least a portion of the Federal government is over.
The story is there to be told but it is not getting through. Just one example: a highway construction bill that would add a couple hundred thousand jobs passed the Senate in March. Meanwhile the House Republicans have not moved on the bill - probably ensuring that the jobs will not happen in time for the summer construction season if at all. This means that the economy will not recover as fast as it might. This in turn adds to the misconception that the Great Recession was Obama's fault and that he hasn't done anything to help it. Oh yeah - and the population segment that would benefit most from the highway bill - i.e., white males - are the ones most opposed to the Obama Presidency. Go figure.
And so the Republican governor who gutted public labor union rights, repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Act, and turned down Federal stimulus monies for high speed rail was an easy victor. The final vote wasn't even close (53% - 47%). This happened in spite of the grass roots effort mounted by Wisconsin unions and others to stage the historic recall - with more than 1 million signatures collected for his recall. (There is one small light in all this: one Republican state senator lost his seat and this should shift control of the Wisconsin Senate to the Democrats. It's too close too call as of this posting and will probably require a recount.)
With the flood of billionaire and corporate wealth unleashed by Citizens United, the handwriting is on the wall for the November elections. It's been there since the Tea Party victories in the mid-term elections - the first elections since the democracy-challenged SCOTUS rendered its infamous Citizens United decision. Combined with the organized voter suppression effort by Republicans in states under their control (including nearly all of the so-called battleground states), this is pointing to an ominous November for Democrats.
Bluntly put: unless the Democrats do a much better job of framing the narrative for the upcoming elections, the short-lived Democratic control of at least a portion of the Federal government is over.
The story is there to be told but it is not getting through. Just one example: a highway construction bill that would add a couple hundred thousand jobs passed the Senate in March. Meanwhile the House Republicans have not moved on the bill - probably ensuring that the jobs will not happen in time for the summer construction season if at all. This means that the economy will not recover as fast as it might. This in turn adds to the misconception that the Great Recession was Obama's fault and that he hasn't done anything to help it. Oh yeah - and the population segment that would benefit most from the highway bill - i.e., white males - are the ones most opposed to the Obama Presidency. Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)