Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Report: Ending Same Day Wisconsin Voter Registration Would Cost $14.5 Million

When Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) announced he would no longer support his own plan to do away with same day voter registration in Wisconsin, he struck a blow to voter suppression and may have saved millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

A new report from the Government Accountability Board suggests that ending the state’s same day voter registration program, which allows eligible voters to register to vote at the polling station on election day, would cost several state agencies a combined $14.5 million:

The staff of the GAB, which oversees the state’s elections, studied the idea and in a preliminary report in December estimated its costs for the first two years after a change would increase by $5.2 million.

The estimate increased dramatically Monday for two reasons.

Since December, four affected state departments — transportation, workforce development, health services and children and families — have submitted their own cost estimates totaling between $9.9 million and $10.5 million, said GAB spokesman Reid Magney.

After the GAB’s initial report in December, when the projected cost of ending ending same day registration was a third of the latest estimates, Gov. Walker told reporters that he would stop his pursuit to end the program, citing the cost. But other Republican legislators in the state may still opt to pursue a bill to strip away same day registration, and Walker has not signaled that he would veto a potential bill. Nationwide, Republicans have waged war on voter rights in the last several years, supporting discriminatory voter ID laws while simultaneously seeking to end early voting and same day registration with little regard for the costs, both financial and otherwise.


View the original article here

Conservatives Celebrate ‘National Marriage Week’ With Sexism

Last week, conservative groups held “National Marriage Week,” an attempt to amplify Christian messaging about marriage. Ironically, many of the pieces published for the occasion celebrated the many benefits of marriage, highlighting how the same groups’ opposition to same-sex marriage is in turn a cruel attack on the well-being of gays and lesbians. As part of the week’s messaging, The Heritage Foundation featured a letter from President Ronald Reagan to his son about marriage, then today posted the following graphic on its tumblr excerpting its final quote:

The quote is unfortunately sexist, given that it implies the man is working and the woman is waiting at home. But of course, its use is implicitly heterosexist as well. The Heritage Foundation opposes LGBT equality and regularly publishes arguments against recognizing same-sex marriage, so it would likely not be quick to celebrate the happiness of a gay man who knows he, too, has someone to come home to.

At any rate, however, progressives can agree with conservatives and President Reagan on the essential component of this quote: companionship is a healthy support structure for adults and the core foundation of families and communities.


View the original article here

Novartis Scraps $78 Million Pay for Outgoing Chairman

Novartis said it would scrap a 72 million Swiss franc ($77.98 million) pay package for outgoing chairman Daniel Vasella, bowing to mounting anger in Switzerland before an investor meeting on Friday.

The move represents a victory for the drugmaker's Swiss shareholders such as Geneva-based Ethos Fund, which had campaigned against paying Vasella 12 million francs over six years to prevent him from working for competitors.

"We continue to believe in the value of a non-compete, however, we believe the decision to cancel the agreement and all related compensation addresses the concerns of shareholders and other stakeholders," Novartis vice chairman Ulrich Lehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

(More on CNBC.com: Novartis CEO: Our Innovation Will Be Rewarded)

Vasella, long a lightning rod for criticism of executive pay in Switzerland, said in the statement he understood that Swiss people found the compensation too high. Vasella earned 13.1 million francs for 2012, down slightly from 13.5 million francs the prior year.

Vasella's golden parachute attracted a raft of criticism from top-ranking Swiss politicians and members of the country's pro-business lobby, against the backdrop of a March 3 referendum to give shareholders a veto over excessive manager pay.

Polls published on Sunday showed almost two thirds of Swiss voters favored the initiative.


View the original article here

Faith Groups Add Their Voices To The ‘Forward on Climate’ Chorus

Sojourners and Young Evangelicals for Climate Action at the rally. Credit: Sojourners

By Catherine Woodiwiss

Eighteen months after the first major protests in DC against the Keystone XL pipeline made headlines for weeks and saw hundreds of protestors arrested, Sunday’s”Forward on Climate” rally gathered the “NO XL” faithful for what organizers called the “biggest climate rally by far in history.”

And as with anti-Keystone protests past, faith groups lent visible support; their banners, prayers, and chants joining the estimated 40,000 peaceful protestors calling on President Obama to show climate leadership in his new term by vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline.

Kevin Mason, a young man with The Catholic Worker hospitality house in DC, saw protesting the pipeline as a matter of justice and solidarity. “One person is hurt, we all are hurt,” he said over chants of “That’s not kosher!” from the assembled crowd. “Charity and resistance go hand in hand. There’s a huge need to get back to the Genesis idea of stewardship and beloved community.”

Faith groups have grown bolder in their pro-environment positions, and are gaining some momentum in joining and helping shape protests against fracking and tar sands removal. The shift hasn’t been easy — climate change is still a challenging conversation in many faithful communities, and remains completely off the radar in others.

Yet in the last year alone, several new groups and initiatives like Young Evangelicals for Climate Action and the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate have sprung up, major faith mobilizers like Sojourners have more publicly stepped in, and longstanding interfaith climate organizing networks like Interfaith Power and Light have redoubled their efforts.

“It’s great to see this interfaith energy,” said George Hoguet, a former Catholic now part of The Stillworkers, an engaged Buddhist community in Pittsburgh. “It’s great — there needs to be more.”

Tim Kumfer, representing Interfaith Power & Light at the rally, expressed hope for the direction of faith involvement. “I’ve seen, even today – there are more and more young people here who are publicly identifying with faith, connecting it to this issue,” he said, noting a common disparity between young climate organizers and older interfaith activists. Increasingly at climate actions, Kumfer noted, “there’s all ages and denominations joining in.”

In 2011, Keystone XL protests helped prompt a delay from the Administration on pipeline construction. This time, protestors want a full stop, and took their message directly to the man they see as the ultimate decider: the newly re-elected President.

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, issued a challenge to thunderous applause from the crowd. If the President were to veto the pipeline, he would, in McKibben’s words, “become the first leader in history to veto legislation because it was bad for the climate. And he can put an end to that with a single stroke of his pen.”

Van Jones, President of Rebuild the Dream, echoed McKibben’s charge. “Today, I direct my message to [the President]: all the good you’ve done, everything you’ve fought for…will be wiped out if you fail to act now. The decision is in your hands.”

He added, “If the pipeline is built, the first thing it runs over… will be your credibility.”

This stern charge came just days after 48 XL protestors were arrested in front of the White House, and President Obama’s State of the Union speech featured climate change as a pressing issue for his second term.

That the rally occurred over President’s Day weekend was no coincidence. “We’re showing [the President] visible support for his efforts,” said one woman in the faith march, identifying as Unitarian. “He needs it more than Congress. We need to show him we agree and want him to keep going.”

Reverend Lennox Yearwood, President of the Hip Hop Caucus and a host for the Forward on Climate rally, urged the crowd to remember the values that unite the climate movement.

Citing the influence of money and power in Washington, Lennox said, “We have other currencies to work with: passion, spirit, creativity. A love for the future is what brought us here today.”

On Sunday, protestors made it clear they are looking to the President to demonstrate his share in these values and veto the pipeline.

Catherine Woodiwiss is a special assistant on the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

How One 75-Year-Old Soybean Farmer Could Deal A Blow To Monsanto’s Empire Today

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a 75-year-old soybean farmer’s appeal against biotech giant Monsanto, in a case that could permanently reshape the genetically modified (GM) crop industry. Victor “Hugh” Bowman has been battling the corporation since 2007, when Monsanto sued him for violating their patent protection by purchasing second-generation GM seeds from a grain elevator. An appeals court ruled in favor of Monsanto, and despite the Obama administration’s urging to let the decision stand, the nine justices will hear Bowman make his case today.

Monsanto is notorious among farmers for the company’s aggressive investigations and pursuit of farmers they believe have infringed on Monsanto’s patents. In the past 13 years, Monsanto has sued 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses, almost always settling out of court (the few farmers that can afford to go to trial are always defeated). These farmers were usually sued for saving second-generation seeds for the next harvest — a basic farming practice rendered illegal because seeds generated by GM crops contain Monsanto’s patented genes.

Monsanto’s winning streak hinges on a controversial Supreme Court decision from 1981, which ruled on a 5-4 split that living organisms could be patented as private property. As a result of that decision, every new generation of GM seeds — and their self-replicating technology — is considered Monsanto’s property.

Unfortunately, second- and third-generation seeds are very hard to track, which may explain why Monsanto devotes $10 million a year and 75 staffers to investigating farmers for possible patent violations. Seeds are easily carried by birds or blown by the wind into fields of non-GM seeds, exposing farmers who have never bought seeds from Monsanto to lawsuits. Organic and conventional seeds are fast becoming extinct — 93 percent of soybeans, 88 percent of cotton, and 86 percent of corn in the US are grown from Monsanto’s patented seeds. A recent study discovered that at least half of the organic seeds in the US are contaminated with some genetically modified material.

Bowman’s appeal gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to determine whether or not Monsanto is using patent enforcement to control their monopoly on a vital resource. As GM seeds become more ubiquitous, farmers who want to avoid Monsanto’s strict patents have few alternatives. As a recently released Center for Food Safety report notes, the concentration of market power among Monsanto and a handful of other companies has led to skyrocketing seed prices and less innovation by smaller firms:

USDA data show that since the introduction of GE seed, the average cost of soybean seed to plant one acre has risen by a dramatic 325 percent, from $13.32 to $56.58. Similar trends exist for corn and cotton seeds: cotton seeds spiked 516 percent from 1995-2011 and corn seed costs rose 259 percent over the same period.
[...] USDA economists have found that seed industry consolidation has reduced research and likely resulted in fewer crop varieties on offer: “Those companies that survived seed industry consolidation appear to be sponsoring less research relative to the size of their individual markets than when more companies were involved… Also, fewer companies developing crops and marketing seeds may translate into fewer varieties offered.”

Furthermore, emerging evidence indicates that Monsanto has hardly perfected the technology. A core argument for GM seeds in the 1990s claimed they would reduce chemical pesticide use because the plants themselves would repel pests and weeds. But studies have confirmed the spread of so-called “superweeds” that have developed a resistance to Monsanto’s gene, leading farmers to deploy even heavier doses of herbicides like Monsanto’s own product, Roundup. Another new report debunked the company’s argument that GM seeds would have higher yields; in fact, two of Monsanto’s most popular genes caused yields to drop.

Despite the mounting evidence against their products, the biotech industry enjoys a cozy relationship with government regulators. In December, the Justice Department abruptly dropped their investigation into anti-competitive practices in the industry without so much as a press release. The stalled Farm Bill also contains generous provisions that would allow these companies to put their products on the market with cursory or no review by the USDA.

Today’s oral argument is a study in these intertwined interests: the Obama administration is presenting their own defense of Monsanto, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was once a Monsanto lawyer (but will not recuse himself from Bowman’s case). Still, the same high court that enabled the current state of American agriculture in 1981 now finds itself in a position to check Monsanto’s power — or help them tighten their hold on the industry.


View the original article here

Equity and excellence in US education policy

By Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) - 02/19/13 02:14 PM ET

The future of the American Dream depends on what we do at this decisive moment. As an educator of more than 30 years, I know the dream is first ignited in the classroom. Education is the origin of opportunity in our cities and towns, and it is the engine of exceptionalism on the world stage. Now, more than ever before, the attainability of the American dream is imperiled by an opportunity gap in public education — a gap exacerbated by wealth disparities at the local level. Our nation’s global leadership is also threatened by widening disparities between American children and students from other developed nations, as our children and families fall further below the poverty line.

At this decisive moment, the Commission on Equity and Excellence in Education issues its seminal “For Each and Every Child” report. It is not a restatement of public education’s struggles, nor is it a mere list of recommendations. Rather, this is a declaration of an urgent national mission: to provide equity and excellence in education in American public schools once and for all. This collective wisdom is an historic blueprint for making the dream of equity, and a world-class education, for each and every American child a reality.

After a year and a half of groundbreaking public dialogue and debate, of study and scrutiny, this report reflects the thinking of the nation’s foremost educational experts, who worked arduously and collaboratively, despite our sometimes disparate ideas about educational reform. It is also inclusive of the input, experiences and ideas of teachers, parents, students, school board members, counselors and principals from across the nation. We present a big and bold new vision on the federal role in education by recommending transformations in school funding structures, implementation of vibrant early education programs, and a commitment to a stronger investment for teacher preparation and retention in the field. This will affect how we assess and address the educational needs of each and every child in America, thereby forging equity for all.

This game-changing report embraces the urgent truth in education reform: that parity is not equity. The report commits to a transformative vision on how local, state and federal governments can, and should, wield power to ensure excellence in education for all of America’s children.

We are at a formative moment in American education, and this report reflects the gravity of the moment. We must all work together tirelessly to make public education thrive in every community in this great nation. By rising to meet this moment, and by guaranteeing that each child is inspired and equipped to succeed, we safeguard America’s founding values and advance our competitiveness, our prosperity and our security. When public education is equitable, the dream of America endures.

Honda is a member of the House Appropriations Committee.

View Comments

View the original article here

Tiger Woods: Golfing with President Obama was 'pretty cool'

Tiger Woods said Tuesday that his weekend golf outing with President Obama was "pretty cool" and that he and the president teamed up for a win against a pairing of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Houston Astros owner Jim Crane.

"He's just a wonderful person to be around. And we won," Woods said at a press conference ahead of the Match Play Championship, according to Sports Illustrated.

Woods also joked that Obama is "an avid golfer, and so am I."

The comments by the 14-time major tournament champion were the first window into the Presidents' Day weekend golf trip in Florida. Reporters were not allowed on to the golf course during the game, drawing complaints from the White House press corps.

"Speaking on behalf of the White House Correspondents' Association, I can say a broad cross section of our members from print, radio, online and TV have today expressed extreme frustration to me about having absolutely no access to the president of the United States this entire weekend," White House Correspondents Association president and Fox News reporter Ed Henry said in a statement. "There is a very simple but important principle we will continue to fight for today and in the days ahead: transparency."

Press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that he was "completely sympathetic" to complaints from reporters, having covered the White House himself for Time magazine.

"I would note that, you know, and this is important to note given some of the coverage of this issue, that when it comes to solo news conferences, where the president of the United States stands up, and for 40 minutes, 50 minutes, or an hour, takes your questions, allowing reporters to go deep on issues, President Obama has given 35 of those. President Bush, his immediate predecessor gave 19," Carney said. "When it comes to interviews, the president's given 591 interviews since he took office. So, I think, that it is clear that we are making an effort to provide access, to make sure that the president is being questioned by reporters and anchors and others. And we'll continue to do that."

Asked specifically about complaints lodged over his game with Woods this weekend, Carney argued the press office had provided enough access.

"I mean, the president had some downtime, he was playing golf," Carney said. "You know, I understand that there was a desire to have access or a photograph of that, but the president was having [a vacation]."

View Comments

View the original article here

Missouri Republicans Push Slew Of Union-Busting Proposals

Missouri Republicans this month touched off the latest push for a so-called “right-to-work” law, introducing legislation similar to the union-busting laws signed by Republican governors in Indiana and Michigan last year. The right-to-work proposal, which prohibits unions from requiring workers to join, is just one of multiple bills targeting unions that are making their way through the GOP-controlled state legislature. Others would end Missouri’s prevailing wage law and prohibit unions from using dues for political purposes unless workers gave them permission to.

Right-to-work, the most pernicious of the proposals, faces an uphill battle even though the GOP holds veto-proof majorities in both the state House and state Senate. Still, Republicans have been emboldened by successful right-to-work efforts in Michigan and Indiana, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports:

I’ve seen a momentum building around the country, and I don’t think it’s an issue that Missourians or our Legislature can simply ignore or avoid,” said House Speaker Tim Jones, Republican from Eureka who has signed on as a co-sponsor of right-to-work legislation here. “It may be a multiyear process because this is the first time — in a long time — these issues have been debated with this much attention.”

The state senate will not prioritize passage of right-to-work, according to Majority Leader Ron Richard (R), because a similar proposal failed last year. But Republicans in both Indiana and Michigan said they would not prioritize right-to-work before passing it shortly after.

Instead, Richard said the Senate would focus on legislation that repeals the state’s prevailing wage law, which guarantees workers a livable wage, and another proposal that would keep unions from using dues for political purposes.

ProgressMissouri found that the various right-to-work proposals closely mirror legislation produced by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a business front-group that was abandoned by dozens of companies last year over its support for controversial voter suppression laws and other conservative proposals. In 2011, Missouri Republicans introduced right-to-work legislation that was nearly identical to legislation introduced in other states.

Proponents argue that right-to-work laws spur job and economic growth, though there is little evidence backing up those claims. Such laws have, however, been linked to lower wages and less access to health and retirement benefits for workers, both union and non-union alike. Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a right-to-work proposal in 1978.


View the original article here

Colorado Lawmaker: Women Can’t Tell Whether They’re About To Be Raped, May Shoot The Wrong Person

State Rep. Joe Salazar (D-CO)

In a debate over whether to prevent college students from carrying concealed weapons on campus on Friday, Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar (D) suggested that female students are too paranoid to responsibly use a firearm. According to the state lawmaker, women may not be able to tell whether or not they’re actually in danger and end up pulling the trigger on an innocent person:

SALAZAR: It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.

Gun advocates often attempt to frame concealed carry permits as a women’s issue, claiming that women need the added protection of a firearm to fight back against attempted incidents of sexual assault. Domestic violence counselors vehemently oppose the policy, pointing out that hidden guns on campus won’t actually help address rape culture, particularly since an estimated two-thirds of sexual assaults occur between people who already know each other. But suggesting that women are too emotional to be able to identify sexual violence — and implying that paranoid women may sometimes “feel like” they’re in trouble when they “may actually not be” — doesn’t help address pervasive issues of rape culture, either.

Salazar apologized for his remarks today. “I’m sorry if I offended anyone,” his statement read. “That was not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make.”

Insensitive comments about rape certainly know no party lines. But concrete policies to address issues of sexual assault have unfortunately become more partisan in recent months. The federal Violence Against Women Act, which has strengthened systems to help survivors of sexual violence for the past 18 years — and which specifically impacts college students, since it helps fund campus programs to address dating violence — has been locked in a political battle in Congress ever since GOP lawmakers balked at adding expanding protections for diverse communities. Republicans in Congress actually let it expire for the first time ever during the last legislative session.


View the original article here