Why Obama is powerless to reform gun laws

 

 

 

Why Obama is powerless to reform gun laws

Anthony Zurcher North America reporter

• 4 October 2015

• From the section US & Canada

President Barack Obama stood in the White House briefing room and, once again, railed against those who object to increased firearm regulation.

"Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out," he said. "We need more guns, they'll argue. Fewer gun safety laws. Does anybody really believe that?"

Mr Obama cited polls that find "the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws".

A mid-July survey by the Pew Research Center seems to support his claim. Almost 80% of respondents backed laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, and 70% were in favour of a national gun-sale database.

So the public support it, why doesn't it happen?

Those numbers don't really mean much, however. What does matter is the opinion of members of the US Congress - and that legislative body is overwhelmingly against further gun regulation.

This disposition of Congress is a reflection of the disproportionate power of less-populated states in the Senate, the conservative-leaning composition of the current House congressional map and a Republican primary process that makes officeholders more sensitive to vehemently pro-gun-rights voters within their party.

Congress doesn't have to represent the views of the majority of Americans, at least as expressed in opinion surveys. It represents the views of Americans who go at the polls on Election Day and the simple majorities in the voting districts in which they cast their ballots.

 

Can't the states do their own thing?

In the Senate - which currently has 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats (or Democratic-supporting independents) - the individual state populations are the key. The votes of Senators John Barrasso and Mike Enzi in pro-gun Wyoming (population 584,153) have the same weight as gun-control-backing Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in California (population 38.8 million).

And when it comes to the most divisive proposal queried in the Pew poll - a ban on assault weapons that is supported by 70% of Democrats but only 48% of Republicans - just seven states, including California, have enacted similar measures for their jurisdictions. The large majorities backing gun control in Illinois, for instance, are more than outweighed by pro-gun states like Alaska, Nebraska and Alabama, with a fraction of its population.

Where in Congress is the blockage?

In the House of Representatives - which has a 58-vote Republican majority - the divergence between national polls and the political reality within the chamber is even more stark.

Thanks to city-rural demographic trends in which pro-regulation liberals tend to live - and vote - in dense urban centres and state-level efforts by Republican-controlled legislatures to draw advantageous voting districts, many state congressional delegations trend more conservative than the general US voting population.

In 2012, for instance, Mr Obama carried 50.6% of the US vote, but Republican Mitt Romney won more votes in 226 of the nation's 435 congressional districts. Overall, Democratic House candidates received 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but the conservative party won 33 more seats.

In 2014, 44% of Pennsylvania residents voted for Democratic House candidates, but they only won 27% of that state's seats.

And those victorious Republican candidates are selected in primaries where the financial support of deep-pocketed pro-gun lobbying groups like the National Rifle Association can prove decisive and the voters who turn out are the kind of conservatives who don't take kindly to a candidate in favour of greater restrictions on gun ownership.

It's a political environment where Republican officeholders face grassroot challenges if they're deemed insufficiently conservative but never if they're not moderate enough.

Congress isn't just against high-profile gun regulation - even measures supported by a large majority of the American people - it also prohibits federal efforts to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.

So what's the way forward?

"This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America," Mr Obama said in Thursday's press conference. "If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views."

During the 2014 mid-term elections, just 36% of eligible voters went to the polls. And more of them, at least in states and congressional districts where it counts, voted for Republican candidates picked in primaries by just 9.5% of US registered voters.

In the US today, it's the gun-control views of that 9.5% that make the difference.

VW faces billions in fines as U.S. sues for environmental violations

 

By Julia Edwards and Georgina Prodhan

WASHINGTON/FRANKFURT (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has sued Volkswagen for up to $48 billion for allegedly violating environmental laws - a reminder of the carmaker's problems nearly four months after its emissions scandal broke.

Although such U.S. lawsuits are typically settled at a fraction of the theoretical maximum penalty, analysts said the size of the claim meant Volkswagen (VW) could face a larger bill than previously anticipated.

"The announcement serves as a reminder/reality check of VW's still unresolved emissions issues," Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a note, maintaining their "sell" recommendation on the stock.

VW (VOWG_p.DE) shares fell as much as 6 percent to a six-week low in early Tuesday trade, the biggest drop on Germany's blue-chip DAX index (.GDAXI).

The civil lawsuit, announced on Monday, reflects the growing number of allegations against VW since the German company admitted in September to installing devices to cheat emissions tests in several 2.0 litre diesel vehicle models.

According to a Reuters review of the U.S. complaint, VW could in theory face fines of as much as $37,500 per vehicle for each of two violations of the law; up to $3,750 per "defeat device"; and another $37,500 for each day of violation.

The complaint says illegal devices to impair emission control systems were installed in nearly 600,000 vehicles in the United States.

In September, U.S. regulators initially said Europe's biggest carmaker could face fines in excess of $18 billion.

The lawsuit had been expected, and analysts believe any fine will be far below the theoretical maximum. Although U.S. authorities sued Toyota for up to $58 billion for environmental violations around the turn of the century, they agreed a settlement that cost the Japanese carmaker about $34 million.

Equinet analyst Holger Schmidt cut his rating on VW shares to "reduce" from "neutral".

"We continue to believe that no one is able to make anything else than a wild guess on potential fines," he said.

During December, VW's shares had been recovering as the carmaker announced incrementally positive news such as simple fixes for about 8.5 million affected cars in Europe.

The stock is now 22 percent below pre-scandal levels, with analysts particularly concerned about the impact on VW in the United States, where the firm has long struggled to make inroads and tougher regulations mean it faces bigger potential fines.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), accuses VW of four counts of violating the U.S. Clean Air Act, including tampering with the emissions control system and failing to report violations.

"The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies against Volkswagen to redress the violations of our nation's clean air laws," said Assistant Attorney General John Cruden, head of the Justice Department's environment and natural resources division.

The lawsuit is being filed in the Eastern District of Michigan and then transferred to northern California, where class-action lawsuits against VW are pending.

"We're alleging that they knew what they were doing, they intentionally violated the law and that the consequences were significant to health," said a senior Justice Department official.

VW's cheating of diesel emissions tests allowed it to avoid a costly revamp of engines to meet new U.S. standards.

The Justice Department has also been investigating criminal fraud allegations against VW for misleading U.S. consumers and regulators. Criminal charges would require a higher burden of proof than the civil lawsuit.

The U.S. lawsuit also alleges VW gamed emissions controls in many of its 3.0 litre diesel models, including the Audi Q7, and the Porsche Cayenne.

VW's earlier admissions eliminate almost any possibility that the automaker could defend itself in court, Daniel Riesel of Sive, Paget & Riesel P.C, who defends companies accused of environmental crimes, said.

To win the civil case, the government does not need to prove the degree of intentional deception at VW – just that the cheating occurred, Riesel said. "I don't think there is any defence in a civil suit," he said.

Instead, the automaker will seek to negotiate a lower penalty by arguing that the maximum would be "crippling to the company and lead to massive layoffs", Riesel said.

Even after VW first admitted to using cheat devices in certain models, the automaker "failed to come forward and reveal" that other vehicles contained such devices, the government said.

To cheat the emissions controls, VW installed software that allowed the vehicles to detect when they were being tested on a flatbed. When the vehicles detected they were actually on the road, the software caused the emissions control systems to underperform or shutdown, the government said, allowing the cars to emit dangerous levels of air pollution.

The civil lawsuit does not preclude the Justice Department from pursuing criminal charges against VW, said the Justice Department official.

VW said in a statement: "Volkswagen will continue to work cooperatively with the EPA on developing remedies."

"We will continue to cooperate with all government agencies investigating these matters."

Above is from:  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-faces-billions-fines-u-120502737.html

Some GOP Governors Flip for Medicaid Funds -- On Their Terms

By Eric Pianin 3 hours ago

 

Newly ensconced Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) last week backed away from his campaign pledge to repeal expanded Medicaid coverage for 400,000 low-income people in the face of the widespread popularity of the program.

Early on, the Tea Party conservative vowed to dismantle the hallmark program of outgoing Democratic governor Steve Beshear that reduced the percentage of uninsured Kentuckians by half. But with polls showing that 72 percent of state residents favored the Obamacare program, Bevin toned down his threat.

Related: GOP Fires a Warning Shot in Kentucky in the War Against Obamacare

Now the new Republican governor is sounding a different political tune, declaring he will seek a waiver from the federal Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services to reform the program in a way that better reflects his conservative principles, that toughens standards for qualifying for coverage and that assures the long-term financial sustainability of the Medicaid program.

Bevin contends that Beshear left behind a $128 million shortfall in the state’s overall Medicaid program this fiscal year that must be addressed through a tightening of the program. “But ultimately, this isn’t just about where we can spend the least amount of money,” he told reporters last week. “More than the dollars, we want to insure that we have people with good health outcomes.”

Bevin’s decision is important because it reflects the changing posture of some previously recalcitrant Republican governors who rejected the Obamacare program but now are feeling pressure to find some middle ground between a full-blown expansion of Medicaid and a more limited approach.

Currently, 20 states have rejected expanded Medicaid coverage, although several are considering changing their decision. A small handful of other Republican governors have changed their positions on terms they demanded through waiver requests like the one Bevin intends to seek.

The financial stakes couldn’t be higher.

Related: Nearly Half of Obamacare Co-Ops Are Closing

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government is picking up 100 percent of the total cost through the end of this year and then will gradually ratchet back its share to 90 percent, with the states required to pick up the rest. If all 50 states and the District of Columbia were to take part in the program, the states would have $38 billion more to spend on Medicaid between 2015 and 2024, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the foundation, said on Monday that it is dawning on Bevin and other Republican governors who have fought the expanded Medicaid program that they are denying their states vital federal funding at a time of economic uncertainty and declining revenues due to a drop in oil prices.

“A lot of Republican governors are looking at the fiscal impact of doing the expansion and it’s not as negative as they like to say,” she said. “It’s more like, ‘We have substantial needs in our state.’ This is especially the case in the states that are losing oil money.”

Rowland added that by altering the Medicaid program, GOP governors could more easily rationalize going after the federal dollars. “Instead of doing a straight expansion, they can say, ‘I got a waiver. I got the federal government to do it my way,” she said.

Related: The Unintended Consequence of Expanding Medicaid

Joseph Antos, a health care expert with the American Enterprise Institute, agrees that there likely will be more adoption of expanded Medicaid coverage, but not until after the 2016 election and President Obama’s departure from office. By then, he said, some of the GOP political opposition will soften, while the CMS will be less concerned about preserving the president’s legacy than finding common ground with Republican-controlled states.

A 2012 Supreme Court ruling essentially created a dual system of health insurance coverage for poor people by allowing states to accept or reject expanded Medicaid coverage. Most blue states jumped at the opportunity, while many red states rejected the offer to voice opposition to Obamacare.

However, a handful of states that initially opposed the offer – including Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa and Michigan – subsequently obtained waivers. In some cases, dramatic changes were made to the program, including imposing premiums and cost sharing on some beneficiaries depending on their incomes and other measures to bring down the overall cost.

Indiana, for example, won waiver approval for one of the toughest and most complex expanded Medicaid programs in the country – one that not only includes premiums,  co-payments and different tiers of coverage but severe penalties – including temporary loss of coverage – for some low income people who miss their payments.

Related: Doctor Shortage Could Rise Under Medicaid Expansion

The Indiana approach implements Medicaid expansion by requiring most newly eligible adults with incomes from zero to 138 percent of the federal poverty level to pay monthly premiums by contributing to a Personal Wellness and Responsibility (POWER) health savings account. According to an analysis by the Kaiser foundation, “newly eligible adults who pay premiums will be eligible for HIP Plus, an expanded benefit package with co-payments only for non-emergency use of the ER.” 

However, those with incomes from 101 percent to 138 percent of the federal poverty level who fail to pay premiums after a 60-day grace period will be removed from coverage and barred from re-enrolling for six months. Beneficiaries with incomes at or below 100 percent of the poverty level who fail to pay premiums will receive HIP Basic, a more limited benefit package with state-plan level co-payments.

Gov. Bevin said his new administration intends to draft a plan to overhaul the state’s expanded Medicaid program by the middle of this year with the goal of implementing it by the start of 2017. Without spelling out many details, he said that Indiana’s expanded Medicaid plan is “the model we most likely will use.”  

As the 2016 session of the Kentucky General Assembly opens, state lawmakers said they intend to carefully monitor Bevin’s efforts to alter the state’s Medicaid system. "It's going to be interesting to see how it shakes out," said Democratic state Rep. David Watkins, a  retired physician who serves as co-chair of the legislature's Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Committee, told the Courier-Journal.  "We're already at the bottom of the heap here in Kentucky. We don't need to go down any further."

Above is from:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-governors-flip-medicaid-funds-111500972.html

Rauner: No state help for Chicago schools unless Emanuel helps push governor's agenda

OAK BROOK, Illinois — Gov. Bruce Rauner says Illinois won't help Chicago Public Schools avert a financial "disaster" unless Mayor Rahm Emanuel starts pushing some of the Republican governor's legislative agenda.

Rauner repeated that position Monday, saying it won't change even if CPS begins laying off thousands of teachers.

CPS faces a $1 billion budget shortfall, due largely to increasing pension payments.

Emanuel wants state lawmakers to change how pensions are funded to reduce CPS' costs and make the system more equitable for Chicago taxpayers.

Rauner said he's "very disappointed" the Democratic mayor hasn't backed his priorities. Those measures include letting local governments opt out of collective bargaining with public-worker unions.

Democrats say Rauner's agenda would drive down wages, hurting working families.

Emanuel's office didn't respond to a request for comment.

Above is from:  http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/f9090523ad044973b2963c80df444fc1/IL--Illinois-Governor-Chicago-Schools

Governor Bruce Rauner talks about where he went on vacation

 

SPRINGFIELD (AP) -

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner says he spent his nearly two-week holiday vacation in Spain and Morocco with his family.

Rauner said Monday he didn't publicly disclose where he was traveling because of concern for his six children.

The governor says "I don't want it around the Internet where my kids are."

Rauner left the country during the weekend of Dec. 19-20, but his staff wouldn't say where he went or why he wanted to keep his whereabouts private.

He was scheduled to return Sunday but came back to Illinois last week to deal with severe flooding in central and southern Illinois.

Rauner says he paid for the vacation himself and didn't take taxpayer-funded security.

He says the family rode camels in the Sahara desert and slept in tents.

Above is from:  http://www.wrex.com/story/30880062/2016/01/04/governor-bruce-rauner-talks-about-where-he-went-on-vacation

'Citizens United' advisory measure can go on ballot, California high court says

Maura Dolan    Contact Reporter

The California Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for the Legislature to place an advisory measure on the November ballot asking voters their views on campaign spending.

The court had previously blocked the measure after a conservative group challenged it, arguing lawmakers were not legally entitled to put advisory propositions before voters.

 

The proposition asks voters whether there should be a federal constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC, which permitted unlimited corporate and union spending for federal candidates.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. had argued that advisory measures would clutter the ballot and could be used to shape voter turnout.

The court, in a 6-1 ruling written by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, said the state legislature has the right to consult voters about possible federal constitutional amendments.

"Long-standing historical practice among the states demonstrates a common understanding that legislatures may formally consult with and seek nonbinding input from their constituents on matters relevant to the federal constitutional amendment process," Werdegar wrote.

The court did not give the Legislature unbridled authority to place all sorts of advisory measures on the ballot.

The majority said there must be a nexus between the advisory measure and a potential action the Legislature may take.

Because state legislatures have a role in passing federal constitutional amendments, Proposition 49, the “Citizens United” measure, met that nexus, the court said.

“Legislators may solicit and consider the views of the people on fundamental matters pertaining to federal constitutional amendments,” Werdegar wrote.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in a concurring opinion, said the ruling should not be interpreted as a broad limitation on the Legislature’s powers.

“Nothing in today's decision should be viewed as calling into question the validity of all types of statewide and local advisory ballot measures, even those completely unrelated to any proposed amendment to the federal Constitution,” the chief justice wrote.

Justice Ming W. Chin, in a dissent, argued the Legislature has no right to place advisory measures on the ballot.

“The Legislature should not be permitted to hijack the ballot to serve its own agenda,” Chin wrote.

The bill passed by the Legislature called for placing the “Citizens United” proposal on the 2014 ballot. The Legislature will have to pass another bill to get the measure on the November ballot, said Thomas W. Hiltachk, who represented the group opposing the advisory measure.

Hiltachk said the majority ruling was narrow and addressed only advisory measures involving federal constitutional amendments.

“Federal constitutional amendments are considered from time to time but pretty rarely,” he said. “If it is limited to that and it is rare, that is one thing. If the Legislature takes this and decides to run with it and go beyond the holding of the court, the problems we are concerned about will arise again and we will take them on again.”

Above is from:  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-supreme-court-ballot-20160104-story.html

Five donors you've never heard of who could shape the 2016 race

 

By Jonathan Swan and Harper Neidig

News articles concerning the most influential political donors in America typically list the same names: The Koch brothers, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson and, lately, Tom Steyer. 

But as we reach the end of 2015, none of these billionaires has spent big in the 2016 contest, at least not at an individual candidate level. In their absence, a number of lesser known donors are shaping up to be major players in 2016.  

Here are five to watch: 

1. The DeVos Family

We’re cheating by including a whole family in our list, but there is no way of separating out this high-spending political unit, which made its fortune from billionaire patriarch Richard DeVos Sr., co-founder of the direct selling company Amway. 

In a year when politicians realized the unbeatable value of hard dollars there is no more valuable a family in political America to have on your side than the DeVoses. And yet while they are well known in their home state of Michigan, the DeVoses, who also own the Orlando Magic NBA franchise, receive strikingly little national media attention. 

Over the course of 2015, no family in conservative politics donated more hard dollars to political campaigns than the DeVoses. An analysis by The Hill shows that members of the DeVos family donated $964,000 in hard dollars to Senate and House campaigns and to Republican Party committees at both the state and national level. This spending easily surpasses the $97,000 in hard dollars from the Koch family and $72,000 from the Coorses – two other major conservative donor families. 

2. Farris Wilks

If Texas Sen. Ted Cruz wins the Republican presidential nomination he will owe a major debt of gratitude to the billionaire pastor Farris Wilks and his family, which made their fortune from fracking. 

Until 2015, Wilks, who leads the Assembly of Yahweh, 7^th Day, in Cisco, Texas, and his brother Daniel had made zero impression in the world of big money politics. FEC records show that Daniel had donated not a penny to any federal candidate, and Farris had only given $61,620. 

But in 2015 these brothers, reportedly inspired by their social conservative values, made donations to Cruz’s super-PAC, which immediately announced them as two of the highest-capacity check writers in conservative politics. Between Farris, Daniel and their two wives, they have so far been reported giving $15 million to Keep the Promise III. 

While Cruz’s super-PACs have spent very little to date, their unexpectedly large bank accounts gave other establishment donors early confidence that Cruz was a serious candidate who could raise money both from grassroots donors into his campaign and from large donors into his super-PACs.  

Cruz’s combination of high and low-end donors is unique in the current Republican field – and positions him to compete right through the nominating season.

3. Mel Heifetz

Mel Heifetz, a multimillionaire Philadelphia real estate investor, is unusual among donors, in that he genuinely does not crave access to the politicians he supports. Instead, Heifetz has a reputation as a passionate, idealistic man who will write huge checks if he feels inspired by the candidate and that enough is at stake.  

When The Hill interviewed him in late September, Heifetz said he “fell in love” with President Obama back in 2008. He followed with a $1 million check to President Obama’s super-PAC last election.

Heifetz had not felt similarly inspired by Clinton, but on Wednesday told The Hill in an email that "it looks like I'll be supporting Hillary in the coming weeks."

Heifetz, who cares about no issue more than gay rights, added, "I have seen no others that might have a chance to win and don't plan learning to refer to Trump as Mr.President."

4. John Jordan

When the pro-Rubio super-PAC “Baby Got PAC” announced its arrival in November, the immediate reaction was laughter. But when operatives realized who was behind the comically-named outfit they had no choice but to take it seriously. 

Unlike most donors who write a big check and maybe dial into the odd conference call or offer off-the-cuff advice, John Jordan, a California winery owner, is known as a hands-on political nerd who obsesses over polling data, the mechanics of media and messaging. 

Over the past two years, Florida-based ad-maker Rick Wilson and Jordan have created some of the more adventurous advertising in campaigns, including a 2014, 60-second spot called “Dating Profile” that went viral. Wilson said the strategy behind that ad – which involves a woman talking about the man she once loved, President Obama, letting her down – was to turn the left’s “war on women” language against itself. 

Baby Got PAC has only released one ad so far this presidential campaign, but if history is any guide Jordan and Wilson will cause plenty of trouble in 2016.

5. Bill Koch

Endless ink is dedicated to the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch – and fairly so, given that they run the most powerful donor network in conservative politics. But what about their lesser-known brother Bill? 

Bill Koch, who spent much of his life engaged in painful legal battles with his brothers, detached from Koch Industries decades ago and is very much his own man. Koch is a business owner, the founder of Oxbridge Academy high school in West Palm Beach, and, through his own investment, won the America’s Cup yacht race in 1992. 

While Charles and David Koch are staying out of the Republican primaries, Bill is getting involved. And he is doing it in his own unpredictable style. Despite having a history of supporting GOP candidates – he gave $250,000 to Mitt Romney’s super-PAC in 2012 – Koch has already donated the maximum $2,700 to struggling Democratic candidate Martin O’Malley. And yet he is also holding a fundraiser for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) at his Palm Beach mansion in January.

Through a spokeswoman, Koch told The Hill that the reason that he gave O’Malley the donation was because he likes the governor and appreciated the hospitality O’Malley showed when Koch had an exhibition of his artwork at the U.S. Naval Academy.

As for his larger intentions in the 2016 presidential race, Koch was coy. “It will be very interesting how it turns outa.”

ABOVE IS FROM:  http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/264474-five-donors-youve-never-heard-of-who-could-shape-the-2016-campaign