Conservative Happenings

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

CALIFORNIA: SCOTUS’ Decision To Hear Friedrichs Case Has Unions In A Tizzy

On June 30^th, the Supreme Court decided to hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association et al, a case that could seriously change the way the public employee unions (PEUs) do business. If the plaintiffs are victorious, teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, etc. would be able to work without the financial burden of paying union dues. The responses to the Court’s decision from the teachers unions and their friends have ranged from silly to contradictory to blatantly dishonest.

In a rare event, leaders of the NEA, AFT, CTA, AFSCME and SEIU released a joint statement explaining that worker freedom would be a catastrophe for the Republic. Clutching their hankies, they told us that, “big corporations and the wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking American families and our entire economy off-balance.” And then, with an obvious attempt at eliciting a gasp, “…the Supreme Court has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America.” (Perhaps the labor bosses misunderstood the wording of the preamble to the Constitution, “In order to form a more perfect union….” No, this was not an attempt to organize workers.) While the U.S. is not without its problems, removing forced unionism will hardly dent the “fundamental promise of America.”

The California Federation of Teachers, which typically is at the forefront of any class warfare sorties, didn’t disappoint. The union claims on its website that the activity of union foes “has resulted in a sharp decline in median wages for working people and the decline of the middle class alongside the increasing concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the one per cent.” But wait a minute – the unions are the most potent political force in the country today and have been for a while. According to Open Secrets, between 1989-2014, the much maligned one-percenter Koch Brothers ranked 59^th in political donations behind 18 different unions. The National Education Association was #4 at $53,594,488 and the American Federation of Teachers was 12^that $36,713,325, while the Kochs spent a measly $18,083,948 during that time period. Also, as Mike Antonucci reports, the two national teachers unions, NEA and AFT, spend more on politics than AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, General Electric, Chevron, Pfizer, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin, FedEx, Boeing, Merrill Lynch, Exxon Mobil, Lehman Brothers, and the Walt Disney Corporation, combined.”

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

BREAKING: Baltimore Police Commissioner Fired By Mayor

Wishful thinking: Next up, Marilyn Mosby?

Via: Weasel Zippers

Gohmert: The Founders' American Dream ‘Was Rooted in Religious Freedom’

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) says, the American Dream of our Founding Fathers “was not centered on a paycheck, or a job or a house. It was not anchored in government control or climbing the ladder of political power - it was rooted in religious freedom.”

The Texas Republican recently appeared in a video for America Proud where he discusses the importance of recognizing religious freedom during the month that we celebrate the birth of the nation.

Here is an excerpt of Gohmert’s comments;

VIDEO LINK

“The United States has served as a beacon of light for millions across the globe because it represents a place of freedom, hope and exceptionalism.

However, it’s important to note the reason our Founding Fathers fought for such liberty and justice for all. Their American Dream was not centered on a paycheck, or a job or a house. It was not anchored in government control or climbing the ladder of political power - it was rooted in religious freedom.

They longed for a land that would allow them along with all others to worship without fear of retribution or retaliation. This was their highest aspiration, religious freedom. They knew that if they had religious freedom that all the other freedoms would flow out of that. They also knew that if they were faithful, divine providence would guide them and make the new nation viable.

In fact Alexander Hamilton, George Washington’s closest aide during the revolution, was not only a part of the important, early proceedings - he was there beside Ben Franklin during the Constitutional Convention and made an insightful assessment of the new nation’s founding. He said this - 'for my own part I sincerely esteem it a system that without finger of God never could never have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.'”

Gohmert continues, “Like Alexander Hamilton, most of the founders were all passionate about forming a nation based on democracy and laying a solid framework, which in turn, left behind a beautiful legacy of biblical adherence and providential inspiration.”

“So it’s my prayer that we celebrate this nation’s long-standing birthday with the remembrance of why men loaded their muskets, drew their swords and shed their blood -to build a nation on the solid rock composed of our first freedom, religious liberty.”

Via: CNS News

How We Can Stop The Expansion of the Federal Government Into Our Classrooms

Innovation starts locally – not in Washington.

Yet, over the past few years, we have witnessed the unprecedented expansion of the federal government into our classrooms.

Decades of regulations, mandates and rules have been piling up on our educators, but failing to improve our students’ education.

Congress is set to reconsider, and potentially reauthorize, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

This law outlines federal programs for K-12 education and was last reauthorized in 2002 as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which further expanded Washington’s intrusion in our schools by creating new federal mandates.

No Child Left Behind also expired in 2007.

This means the Obama administration has been able to operate without certain limitations and has strong-armed states into complying with its liberal education agenda.

Thankfully, we have the opportunity to get Uncle Sam out of the business of micromanaging our schools from the top-down and return control to our local families, educators and officials.

This week in the House, my colleagues and I are revisiting the way Washington approaches our K-12 federal education policy with consideration of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.

This bill repeals and reforms many failed education policies like the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) mandate, but I challenge that we can do even better for our children and future generations.

Conservatives have the largest majority in Congress that we have had in years, and we have a real opportunity to stand against Washington’s culture of bureaucracy and make a difference in our federal approach to education — let’s ensure we truly return education decisions back to the local-level.

Via: Daily SIgnal

State Department Hid Clinton Aide’s Special Job Status, Grassley Charges

State Department officials “failed to disclose” a special employment status granted to Cheryl Mills who was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, according to Sen. Charles Grassley.

Mills was designated a “Special Government Employee,” and may have “abused her access” for the benefit of former President Clinton and the Clinton family’s foundation, Grassley, the Iowa Republican, charged Tuesday in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry.

Grassley is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Special government employee status allowed Mills to be paid simultaneously for several months in 2009 as Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department and as a member of the board of directors for the Clinton Foundation

The SGE designation also exempted Mills from certain criminal and civil conflict-of-interest ethics laws that usually cover federal employees, as well as from other regulations governing outside income and affiliations while on the government payroll.

As chief of staff, Mills was one of a small circle of State Department officials who reviewed the former chief executive’s proposed speeches and business arrangements to prevent conflicts of interest with Mrs. Clinton’s duties as secretary of state.

Clinton was paid millions of dollars for the speeches by foreign governments, individuals, foundations and corporations.

The Grassley charges widen the group of State Department employees who received the special designation during Clinton’s tenure as the country’s chief diplomat.

Via: Daily Caller

Why aren't Democrats asked if they agree with sanctuary cities who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Why does the administration sue states like Arizona who want to enforce federal immigration laws and essentially reward sanctuary cities like San Francisco who refuse to enforce the laws of the land?

Since sanctuary cities are acceptable to the administration, I believe the concept of sanctuary businesses should be set up nationwide. These businesses could choose to not comply with Federal immigration laws. They would get the double benefit of not having to cover illegal immigrants for Obama Care since that is not required. I am sure the Justice Department, the Obama Administrations, all Democrats, the compliant media, the ACLU and others would be major supporters of these sanctuary businesses since they are just trying to help out their fellow man and we all know that the U.S became the greatest economic power in the World because of illegal immigration.

Anyone who opposes these common sense sanctuary businesses should be called hostile to all immigrants.

I actually think the concept of sanctuary cities and businesses should be expanded so they can pick and choose the federal laws they want to comply with. After all, some laws just aren’t working and the legislative process is just too cumbersome. What could go wrong?

Most of the media essentially portrays Republicans who want to enforce existing immigration laws as far right extremists and portrays Democrats who willingly ignore existing laws as common sense politicians.

I guess laws of the land only have to be obeyed if Democrats and the media agrees with those laws. Ignoring the oath of office and the Constitution is obviously fine when the media agrees.

Where are the protests and where is the outrage by the media that San Francisco politicians and the Obama Administration willingly look the other way as they let a criminal illegal alien who had already been deported five times out on the street to kill an innocent woman. .We have been told that the borders are more secure than ever and that is obviously true because the murderer has only been deported five times. Now we learn that he killed the woman with a gun stolen from a federal agent. That shows that we have to get all guns out of the hands of federal agents because one death like this is one too many.

I am also shocked that President Obama is not giving the eulogy on the murdered woman and that there is not continuous coverage of her funeral.

And we all must remember, that, according to Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, that even though this murder occurred in The Democrat sanctuary city of San Francisco who released this known criminal, that it is the Republicans’ fault because they didn’t pass the immigration bill.

The bias in the media is truly hard to spot.

Via: American Thinker

‘DIRTY DOZEN’ LIBERAL BLUE STATES GOING BROKE

A new study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center confirms what many of us already knew:

Liberal “blue states” are fiscally irresponsible.

In fact, 11 of the 14 least fiscally solvent states are also on the list of the “dirty dozen” most liberal blue states. In descending order of fiscal irresponsibility, from 50th to 37th, here’s the list of fiscal shame:

#50 ILLINOIS

#49 NEW JERSEY

#48 MASSACHUSETTS

#47 CONNECTICUT

#46 NEW YORK

#44 CALIFORNIA

#42 MAINE

#40 HAWAII

#39 VERMONT

#38 RHODE ISLAND

#37 MARYLAND

The 12th state in the “dirty dozen” list—Delaware—does not fare particularly well either, placing 30th out of the 50 states.

(In an article published at Breithbart on the 4th of July, I offered a definition of these “dirty dozen” to include those states that gave President Obama more than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election.)

The Mercatus Center report ranked the 50 states “based on their fiscal solvency in five separate categories:”

(1) Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?

(2) Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues? Or does it have a budget shortfall?

(3) Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?

(4) Service-level solvency. How much fiscal “slack” does a state have to increase spending should citizens demand more services?

(5) Trust fund solvency. How much debt does a state have? How large are its unfunded pension and health care liabilities?

The Mercatus Center report supports an assertion I made in that earlier article:

One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one [consisting of the “Great 38 States” in flyover country which President Obama either lost or obtained less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 Presidential election] where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other [those “dirty dozen” liberal blue states] where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.

The “dirty dozen” liberal blue states are headed towards the sort of fiscal insolvency now unraveling the country of Greece, and their fiscal recklessness may well drag down the entire federal government as well. All the more reason for the rest of us in the “Great 38 States” to consider convening an Assembly of the States so that fiscally responsible states can assert their sovereign rights guaranteed by the 10th amendment. Those sovereign rights include the right not to be forced to pay for another state’s profligacy.

Via: Breitbart

WATCH: White House Press Briefing – 07/08/15

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest delivers the daily press briefing to reporters from the White House, beginning today at approximately 12:30 p.m. ET. Check back here at Mediaite daily, where you can watch the full live-streaming video of remarks and answers to questions from the White House Press Corps.

Watch below, via The White House:

Gun Used by Illegal Immigrant in San Francisco Shooting Belonged to Federal Agent

The gun used by a Mexican illegal immigrant when he allegedly shot dead a 32-year-old woman at a San Francisco pier belonged to a federal agent, a source confirmed to Fox News Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear how Francisco Sanchez, 45, would have obtained the weapon. However, the San Francisco Chronicle reported sources told the paper the gun had been stolen during a car burglary in June.

Earlier Tuesday, Sanchez pled not guilty to first-degree murder in last week's shooting of Kathryn Steinle, 32, while she was walking with her father and a family friend at Pier 14. Police said witnesses heard no argument or dispute before the shooting, suggesting it was a random attack.

Sanchez had previously told KGO-TV Sunday in a mix of Spanish and English that he found a gun wrapped inside a shirt while he was sitting on a bench at the pier and smoking a cigarette.

"So I picked it up and ... it started to fire on its own," Sanchez said, adding that he heard three shots go off.

A source familiar with the investigation told the San Francisco Chronicle that Sanchez said he was at the popular pier to shoot at sea lions, and discarded the firearm after realizing he had shot Steinle.

Via: Fox News

Fraud crackdown sends illegal immigrant licenses plummeting in NM

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has tried to repeal the state's policy of issuing driver's licenses to illegals, but has had to settle for cracking down on fraud. (AP)

A crackdown on document fraud has sent the number of driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens in New Mexico plunging by 70 percent, while revealing that the state likely issued tens of thousands of bogus licenses after becoming the first state to adopt the controversial policy a dozen years ago.

Last year, New Mexico issued 4,577 licenses to foreign nationals, down sharply from the 2010 high of about 15,000. Officials in the administration of Gov. Susana Martinez, who opposes the policy but has been unable to get it repealed, say the huge drop came as soon as new procedures were implemented to identify fraudulent documents that had been submitted to obtain licenses.

“While this is encouraging news, Gov. Martinez still sides with an overwhelming majority of New Mexicans who believe we must repeal the dangerous law of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, which has turned our state into a magnet for criminal activity,” said Mike Lonergan, spokesman for the governor.

“These people enter the country illegally then obtain a driver’s license through fraud and lies.”

- Bill Rehm, New Mexico state lawmaker

New Mexico became the first of 10 states to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2003, under then-Gov. Bill Richardson, who claimed it would cut down on uninsured drivers in the state. But while the policy's effect on public safety has been inconclusive, critics say it launched a cottage industry for criminals to sell fraudulent documents.

Last year, federal officials broke up a five-year operation -- which extended from New Mexico to New York -- that saw illegal immigrants from Georgia paying as much as $2,000 to obtain documents to secure a New Mexico driver’s license

Via: Fox News

Hillary Clinton on Her 'Last Rodeo'

July 7, 2015 Before Hillary Clinton spoke to a crowd of roughly 250 supporters in the Iowa City Public Library on Tuesday, a young female campaign staffer had a few requests for the attendees. First, she asked those in attendance to pull out their smartphones and "like" Clinton's local Facebook page for Iowa and Johnson County. Then, she rattled off a phone number for the supporters to text in exchange for "updates" (aka donation pleas) from the campaign, which announced that it added 20 field organizers to its already large Iowa staff Tuesday.

But the actual content of Clinton's speech was refreshingly free of campaign artifice. Yes, she began with her routine spiel about income inequality, health care, and her excitement at becoming a grandmother, but her remarks felt more off-the-cuff than usual. Perhaps in an attempt to embrace her inner nerd, Clinton recalled spending hours in her local library during summer vacations while growing up.

One anecdote from her career as secretary of State in particular stood out as something new not only to the attendees, but to the reporters who obsessively cover the Clinton campaign as well. She told a story about the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Clinton and President Obama were trying to negotiate terms with India and China—two of the fastest-developing countries in the world—for a climate change agreement.

(RELATED: Here's the Real Reason Hillary Clinton Has a Lock on the Democratic Nomination)

The problem: China and India's leaders were nowhere to be found. Clinton said she and Obama "sent out scouts," who found that the leaders were meeting in a clandestine conference room. Clinton and Obama marched to the room, she said, and pushed past Chinese security guards to confront the heads of state. As a result, the assembled countries signed an accord outlining emissions pledges and other goals for energy use, though much of the text was nonbinding.

Via: National Journal

Report: Clinton Brother Promised Political Favors For Cash, Did Not Deliver

After the earthquakes that rocked Haiti in 2010 left hundreds of thousands of people homeless, Bill Clinton’s half-brother promised a Houston businessman he could help land contracts to rebuild.

Roger Clinton took $100,000 from the man on the promise that influence from his brother could get him a contract through the Clinton Foundation for a project building new houses, The New York Times reports.

The Houston builder, Wayne Coleman, proposed to build cheap, concrete homes for the Haitians who lost theirs in the disaster, and paid Clinton $5,000 per month to make sure he could do that.

The plan didn’t pan out, though, as Coleman told the Times, Bill Clinton took a tour of his demonstration home, but in the end chose to go with a different company.

According to Coleman, Roger Clinton’s lawyer, Walter Wiggins Jr., got involved in the deal to lend some credibility to the whole situation, but it didn’t help.

“He was basically trying to help Roger, because Roger was kind of a screwball, you could never pin him down on anything,” Coleman told the Times. “I probably lost about half a million dollars over all on the whole thing.”

Roger Clinton wasn’t the only member of the Clinton extended family, trying to profit off the disaster in Haiti, though.

Tony Rodham, brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton, sat on the board of one of just two mining companies given permits to dig for gold in the country.

In 2012, while Clinton worked as U.S. Secretary of State, the small North Carolina company, VCS Mining, received a “gold exploitation permit” from the Haitian government, the first issued in over 50 years.

The project in Haiti is the only project listed on the VCS Mining website.

Via: Daily Caller

BRIANNA KEILAR WAS SURPRISED THAT HILLARY WOULDN’T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING!

Although it’s clear that Brianna Keilar was a big Hillary fangirl, even she had to say that it was surprising how unwilling Hillary was to take responsibility for anything that had gone wrong during her road to the coronation.

Watch below:

Yeah, expect candidate “Hard Choices” to dodge responsibility – that’s all Clintons know how to do!!

Via: Right Scoop

Massachusetts revenue, welfare, transportation, environmental agencies hit by early retirements

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Department of Revenue, tasked with collecting state taxes, is losing 289 employees, or 15 percent of its total workforce, as part of a state budget-saving measure.

Auditors and tax examiners are among those taking an early retirement incentive.

The Department of Revenue plans to publish information later this week on how it will deal with the changes.

Gov. Charlie Baker proposed, and the Legislature approved, an early retirement incentive that was meant to save the state money by trimming the state workforce. Now that those workers have retired, effective June 30, 2,478 public employees have left state service, according to Massachusetts Comptroller Thomas Shack.

As expected, some agencies were harder hit than others – including the Department of Revenue, the Department of Transportation, the department that oversees welfare, the Department of Environmental Protection and several Health and Human Service agencies. Some of these jobs could be backfilled, as the Baker administration has the authority to use up to 20 percent of the savings to hire new people into the vacant positions.

Brendan Moss, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, said state government will be able to deal with the losses. "We are continuing to work closely with all state agencies affected to ensure it will have minimal impact on state services," Moss said.

Baker pointed out that he had expected 4,500 people to retire. "We had planned for a larger number of people to leave state service than actually did, and I actually feel at this point that we're in reasonably good shape," Baker said Monday.

Via: Mass Live

Don't Use the Budget to Set Bad Gun Policies | Commentary

In its first vote on guns since the mass shooting in Charleston, S.C., the House Appropriations Committee retained a long-standing ban on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for research on gun violence.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time the House used the budget process to do the National Rifle Association’s bidding. Twice this month, the House tried to handcuff the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as the agency works to prevent criminals from getting guns.

First, the House blocked an ATF proposal to close a loophole that allows criminals to buy or possess machine guns.

That’s right — machine guns. The loophole allows people to get them after they’ve formed a business entity such as a trust, through which they can avoid both the standard gun-sale background check and the required certification from local law enforcement. With “gun trust” applications skyrocketing — from fewer than 1,000 in 2000 to more than 40,000 in 2012 — the ATF is logically seeking to make the rules for buying and possessing machine guns the same for trusts as they are for individuals.

The House used a budget bill to block the ATF’s gun trust proposal — and it didn’t stop there. The House also moved to shut down an existing, effective ATF security program — one that’s helping break up gun-trafficking rings and better police the U.S.-Mexico border.

It’s called the “long-gun reporting program.” It’s modeled on a common-sense requirement, in place for 20 years, which requires licensed gun dealers to notify the ATF when someone buys multiple handguns within five business days. Such high-volume sales are typically associated with gun trafficking — not with self-protection, hunting, collecting or any other form of law-abiding gun ownership.

For two decades, the multiple-sales reporting requirement has produced “timely, actionable investigative leads” and helped the ATF identify and prosecute gun traffickers. Shotguns and rifles (or, “long guns”) were not subject to the reporting requirement until recently, when the ATF began requiring reports for certain powerful long guns bought from dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.

Why might the ATF want to continue requiring long-gun reports from dealers in the four states that border Mexico?

Because law enforcement and the border communities they protect are under attack.

Via: Roll Call

Don't Give Obama More Power Over Schools

After spending most of June giving President Obama new authority to negotiate trade deals with low-wage countries in Asia, congressional Republicans are now poised to spend July giving Obama new authority over education in America's public schools. This is a big disappointment for those of us who worked hard to elect a Republican Congress last November. We expected the new Congress to take power back from the president, not give him more.

For the past 50 years, the engine of federal control over local schools has been Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. It was the first in a series of socialist laws that President Lyndon Johnson promised would lead to a "Great Society" after we won his declared "war on poverty."

Johnson's Great Society legislation was speedily enacted by a Congress in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than two to one (295-140 in the House and 68-32 in the Senate). Despite the trillions of dollars spent since 1965, we're no closer to achieving a Great Society; by many measures, America's education and social welfare are much worse today than when those programs were launched 50 years ago.

Republicans had an opportunity to dismantle the failed regime of federal control when they regained control of both Houses of Congress in 1994 and then elected a president in 2000. Unfortunately, George W. Bush campaigned on the slogan "Leave No Child Behind" as his signature domestic agenda item, and John Boehner, then chairman of the House Education Committee, produced a bill that rebranded the old ESEA under the new title "No Child Left Behind."

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) promised to bring all children (including all demographic minorities measured separately) to 100 percent proficiency by 2014. Of course, that didn't happen, and nearly everyone now recognizes NCLB as a complete failure.

With their current historic majority in both Houses, there's a new opportunity for Republicans to dismantle the 50-year failure of money poured into local public schools with strings attached. Unfortunately, Republicans, once again, are on the verge of just rebranding the same failed programs with new and overly optimistic slogans: the "Student Success Act" (in the House) and the "Every Child Achieves Act," ECAA, (in the Senate).

Via: Townhall

Gay marriage, Obamacare, Confederate flag comes down - a generation is defined: Rhonda Mays

While watching the series of special reports on television news during the last week of June as Supreme Court rulings were announced, I turned to my daughter and said, "Pay close attention to what is happening. This is a week that will be remembered for generations to come."

Rhonda Mays

Only once or twice in a lifetime can we expect to witness a decision of historic significance. To witness several major rulings within a short period of time, so different in their focus but extremely important regarding the future of our nation, is very unusual.

Confederate flag

While not a ruling by the Supreme Court, the decision by Gov. Nikki Haley to request removal of the Confederate flag flying on state grounds in South Carolina has had an impact nationwide. For millions of Americans, and many citizens of other nations, the Confederate flag is a relic of a sorrowful and unfortunate past. To them it represents rebellion against our Union, terrorism, and officially sanctioned oppression of a massive number of individuals for promotion of the false narratives of racial superiority and segregation.

Personally, I would be in favor of banning the display of the Confederate flag on any property, public or private, due to its perverse symbolism. However, I understand that would be disagreeable to many and adverse to the American premise that freedom of speech and expression is a right. Accordingly, in America, an individual is free to privately fly or stick the Confederate flag anywhere they please on their person or private property, and we are free to surmise what displaying that flag represents regarding the individual's character.

Affordable Care Act

With the Affordable Care Act, federal subsidies to the poor were upheld as constitutional in a 6-3 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan.

In a case which exemplifies the notion of the impact of unintended consequences, the Supreme Court ruled tax credits which make medical insurance affordable for low and moderate income families are allowable nationwide. The case, King vs. Burwell, establishes the intent of Congress to provide subsidies for health care by the state or the federal governments. If the ruling had denied the ability of the federal government to provide tax credits or subsidies, millions of individuals previously receiving health care purchased through exchanges would have experienced drastic increases in premium costs which, in turn, would have made medical insurance prohibitively high. Many of these individuals would have lost their health care rendering the ACA ineffective. For them, the only hope would be for the states which decided to not establish their own exchanges did so, as states, "under a death spiral scenario so coercive as to be unconstitutional."

In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote, "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."

With those two simple sentences a key part of the ACA intended to extend health care to millions of Americans who probably would not be insured, was established as law.

Fair housing

Texas Department of Community Affairs vs. Inclusive Communities Project upheld claims of disparate impact as a measure of fair housing practices by a 5-4 decision. Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan were in the majority.

For civil rights and fair housing advocates this ruling is critical because it reaffirms the notion that "intent" to racially discriminate need not be proven, only a negative impact to the goals of the Fair Housing Act must be demonstrated to exist. This ruling upheld the constitutional legitimacy of one of the most powerful tools used by advocates to promote housing desegregation, equal access to services, and diverse communities within the nation.

Via: PennLive

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

A new study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center confirms what many of us already knew:

Liberal “blue states” are fiscally irresponsible.

Popular Posts