Rogue state

(Difference between revisions)

A Rogue state is a dictatorial state. The term "rogue state" was used by George W. Bush. A list of rogue states is the State Sponsors of Terrorism. Those currently states are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.[1] Former states are Libya, North Korea and Iraq.

? http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

View the original article here

Obamacare's Rate Shock Hits The Buckeye State

Ohio Department of Insurance officials announced last week that average premiums in the Buckeye state would soar 88 percent once President Obama's health care law kicks in. (Photo: Thinkstock)

Ohio Department of Insurance officials announced last week that average premiums in the Buckeye state would soar 88 percent once President Obama's health care law kicks in. The news added fuel to an already raging debate over Obamacare's effect on insurance costs.

Ohio's insurance department disclosed that a total of 14 insurance companies had proposed rates on 214 plans to be offered through the federally run insurance exchange set to open on Oct. 1 and begin providing benefits in January.

"The department's initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014," said Ohio's Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. Specifically, the study showed that the average monthly cost of insurance would rise from $223 to $420.

Supporters of Obamacare were quick to dismiss the news, noting that Taylor was a Republican and arguing that the study was misleading. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, one of the most prolific defenders of the health care law, insisted that it wasn't fair to compare average premiums, because that doesn't account for differences in the quality of the plans.

For instance, he described that under the current system, one of the cheapest bare bones plans in Ohio costs just $29 per month, but could stick enrollees with annual out of pocket expenses as high as $25,000. Under Obamacare, out of pocket costs are capped at $6,350 for the cheapest "bronze" level plan.

But in his analysis, Cohn is doing what he often accuses critics of Obamacare of doing -- cherry-picking a plan that results in the most outrageous number to demonstrate a point -- in this case, $25,000 out of pocket costs. But even if we give up the idea of comparing average premiums, the announced Ohio rates don't present a pretty picture for Obamacare.

Ohio regulators also announced that, "Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans." That means that the cheapest plan available under Obamacare in Ohio will be $282.51.

But according to a search of eHealthInsurance.com, a 26 year-old living in Cleveland, Ohio, could currently purchase an Anthem SmartSense Plus plan for $89.45 per month. That's less than a third of the cost of the lowest Obamacare rate, as reported by Ohio regulators, and the annual out of pocket expenses for the Anthem plan are $6,000 -- which is less than Obamacare's bronze option.

In fact, under the current system, the same hypothetical 26 year-old could purchase a Medical Mutual plan with a $2,500 annual out of pocket limit, for $188.41 per month -- still significantly cheaper than the least expensive Obamacare option.

Obamacare naturally drives up the cost of insurance because it requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and mandates that insurers offer a wide array of benefits, whether or not consumers want them. It also institutes a tax on health insurance.

To his credit, Cohn eventually acknowledges that, "Obamacare's requirements really will make insurance more expensive relative to what it would cost otherwise" meaning that some people will end up paying more.

In general, if the law works as intended, older and sicker Americans who qualify for subsidies will find it easier to obtain affordable health coverage, but younger Americans with lower health care costs who do not qualify for subsidies will end up paying more.

Through the individual mandate, the federal government is hoping to coax enough healthy Americans into buying much more insurance than they're likely to need, thus providing a windfall of profits to private insurers, who can then afford to cover sicker Americans.

Philip Klein (pklein@washingtonexaminer.com) is a senior editorial writer for The Washington Examiner. Follow him on Twitter at @philipaklein.

View the original article here

ACA's Alice in Wonderland Twist: HHS Unilateral Delay of Regs for One State

Some recent ACA interpretations seem drawn from the popular story Alice in Wonderland. Image Source: freecodesource.com

A recent decision by HHS illustrates the arbitrary nature by which some implementation decisions are being made at CMS while highlighting the problem of a top-down approach in Obamacare. After months of small businesses anxiety in Massachusetts surrounding the impact of fewer rating factors due to an ACA mandated one-size-fits all policy, the Federal government recently pulled a piecemeal delayed implementation of the regulations out of thin air. (Background on the rating issue can be found in this post). One is now left to wonder if there is a legal rationale for such a decision, and begs the question if other states should be making similar appeals to HHS to forestall regulations that will spike premiums for many younger individuals 30-100 percent.

Delay

Jason Milliman and Kyle Cheney at Politico had the story first:

Federal health officials on Friday granted Massachusetts a phase-in for certain ACA rules that the state warned would have inflicted serious damage to small businesses because of a conflict with state’s 2006 health care overhaul….

The temporary relief, explained in a letter CCIIO Director Gary Cohen sent to Massachusetts officials Friday, allows the state to phase out its insurance rating system for small businesses over three years. Bay State officials and business groups had warned Obama administration officials that switching immediately to ACA rules would have meant serious rate shock in 2014.

Takeaways

1)      Romneycare and Obamacare are Not the Same Law

The decision by the Obama Administration to phase-in the rating factors in Massachusetts should make one point very clear; the ACA will cause insurance premiums for small businesses to spike in the state– so much for the claims that the two laws are the same.

The only difference now is that the premium shock will be seen over three years instead of one. This is like telling an innocent man that his life-sentence in prison will be delayed over 3 years, with him spending a little more time in prison each year. I’m not sure if this makes the end result any easier to swallow.

Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance, Joe Murphy, seems to miss the point in his related statement on the decision, “This is good news for small businesses and individual insurance consumers all across the commonwealth.”

How?

Is it because they won’t see the whole state predicted “extreme premium increase” next year, but will end up paying the full amount in three years off the highest premium base in the nation?

Pioneer Institute has put in a Freedom of Information Act request to see drafts of the report. The state has failed to respond within the required 10 working day time table, so the estimated impact of the changes remain unknown. However, the Division has informed sources that premiums could raise by 17 percent.

2)      Danger of One-Size-Fits-All Approach

Massachusetts is not the only state that finds itself in the position of trying to protect a pre-existing state regulations or programs from Obamacare.

Governor Mark Dayton (D-MN) is trying to protect a program called MinnesotaCare for 100,000 low-income residents. (Kevin Diaz at Star Tribune had the story.) The federal law would also kill off a well functioning state-high risk pool called the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association. Reporter Christopher Snowbeck contends is “one of the reasons that Minnesota traditionally has had one of the nation’s lowest rates of residents who lack health insurance.” State officials worry that dumping these high risk individuals into the exchange will cause premiums to spike for everyone.

The state of Idaho may lose its cost-effective and successful reinsurance system, which was most recently copied by Maine in the form of its Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP). (See paper by Tarren Bragdon and Joel Allumbaugh for more detail.) So much for state flexibly and tailored reform approaches.

3)      HHS is Inventing Implementation Decisions

In an April 5th letter from Gary Cohen from CCIIO to the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance, CMS concocts a phase-in schedule. He writes:

The Affordable Care Act makes clear that Congress had significant interest in promoting stability for states that, like Massachusetts, had implemented robust Exchanges and were succeeding in providing health insurance coverage for their residents prior to the enactment of the law. Specifically, in section 1321(e) of the law Congress created a presumption in favor of the ongoing operational processes of such existing Exchanges. The law created a transition period for those Exchanges to come into compliance with the standards of the Affordable Care Act.

While the rating requirements of section 2701 of the Public Health Service Act are not among the Exchange standards that are described in section 1321(e) of the Affordable Care Act, there is a relationship between those requirements and the operational concerns that Congress envisioned when it enacted section 1321(e). For this reason, we have concluded that it is appropriate to afford issuers in Massachusetts a three year transition period instead of coming into full and immediate compliance with the rating requirements at issue. (Bold Added)

Putting aside the fact that section 1321 (e) was not a “transition” period at all, but instead an assumption of complaince for states with an exchange, Mr. Cohen acknowledges that this issue is not addressed in the ACA. His rationale of rating factors being primarily related to exchange operations is weak at best. Rating factor impacts will fall almost exclusively on small companies outside of the exchange, and doesn’t impact the operational nature of the public exchange. The HHS letter makes it clear the agency lacks a concrete legal standing for such a decision.

One is left to wonder why other states can’t make an equally valid claim in order to meet the spirit of the ACA language to preserve the “right to maintain existing coverage” or offer “affordable choices of health benefit plans.” Evidence suggest they too will need a delayed phase-in as well.

View the original article here

Not Enough Doctors In Medicaid, State Director Says

View the original article here

Minnesota State Rep. Introduces Bill To Halt Public Financing Of Football Stadium Until Revenue Is Secure

Artist's rendering of new Vikings stadium

The Minnesota state legislature last year approved a financing plan for a new stadium for the National Football League’s Minnesota Vikings. In doing so, it exploited a legal loophole to provide $348 million in taxpayer money for the project.

The revenues were supposed to come from revenues from new electronic pull-tab machines, but by January, it was already clear that those revenues weren’t keeping up with projections, meaning the new stadium was already turning into a financial nightmare before construction even began. Now, a Minnesota state representative is preparing to introduce legislation that would halt construction — and the bond sale meant to pay for it — until the state can guarantee that the pull-tabs will generate enough revenue to pay for it, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports:

Republican state Sen. Sean Nienow of Cambridge says he’ll introduce a bill that would delay the sale of bonds for a new Vikings stadium until a revenue stream to pay them off is secured.

Additional tax revenue from newly authorized electronic forms of charitable gaming, which was supposed to pay the state’s share of the stadium, is coming in much slower than anticipated, and the backup sources aren’t expected to be able to produce more than a few million dollars per year.

Nienow says he and Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, plan to introduce the bill next week.

As we have documented here, stadiums consistently turn out as bad deals for taxpayers, as the promised revenue streams almost always come up short of projections and leave cities and states footing the bill, whether through increased debt, higher taxes, or cuts to public programs.

What makes Minnesota’s stadium different is that it became clear even before construction began that revenues meant to pay for the stadium aren’t going to come close to covering the cost. While Nienow’s legislation wouldn’t abandon the stadium plan altogether, it would still force the state to find actual revenue to pay for the stadium, though that will still leave taxpayers footing the bill so the Vikings’ wealthy owner can make more money from a stadium than he could have made from the old one. (HT Field of Schemes)

View the original article here

Presidential Proclamation -- First State National Monument

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST STATE NATIONAL MONUMENT

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Sites within the State of Delaware encompass nationally significant objects related to the settlement of the Delaware region by the Swedes, Finns, Dutch, and English, the role that Delaware played in the establishment of the Nation, and the preservation of the cultural landscape of the Brandywine Valley. A national monument that includes certain property in New Castle, Dover, and the Brandywine Valley, Delaware (with contiguous acreage in the Township of Chadd's Ford, Pennsylvania) will allow the National Park Service and its partners to protect and manage these objects of historic interest and interpret for the public the resources and values associated with them.

In 1638, Peter Minuit led Swedish and Finnish colonists to present-day Wilmington, established New Sweden, and built Fort Christina. Holy Trinity (Old Swedes) Church nearby includes a burial ground used since the Swedes landed in this area in 1638. In 1651, Peter Stuyvesant led Dutch settlers from New Amsterdam in present-day New York to a site approximately 7 miles south of Fort Christina. There, in present-day New Castle, the Dutch built Fort Casimir and named the place "New Amstel." The Dutch fort at New Amstel occupied a better position than the Swedish Fort Christina for controlling commerce. Conflicts between the Swedish and Dutch colonists resulted in changing occupations of Fort Casimir, with the Dutch regaining control in 1655.

In 1664, the English arrived in New Amstel, seized the city for the King of England, and renamed it "New Castle." The English also wrested control of all of New Netherland, incorporating it into the colony of New York under the Duke of York, brother of King Charles II.

In 1681, King Charles II deeded Pennsylvania to William Penn. To protect the land around New Castle that he had previously granted to the Duke of York, the King set the boundary 12 miles from New Castle in an arc extending radially from a point subsequently marked by the cupola of the New Castle Court House built in 1732. To gain access to the Atlantic Ocean for his new Quaker Colony, however, William Penn persuaded the Duke of York to give him the three "Lower Counties of Pennsylvania" that eventually became Delaware. The "12-mile arc" that separated these lower counties from the rest of

Pennsylvania, and eventually became the State boundary between Pennsylvania and Delaware, runs through the present-day Woodlawn property in the Brandywine Valley (Woodlawn).

William Penn landed in New Castle in 1682, and took possession of the city. In 1704, Penn allowed the General Assembly of the Three Lower Counties to meet in New Castle separately from the Assembly in Philadelphia, portending the development of the State of Delaware. New Castle remained the colonial capital of Delaware until 1777, and the New Castle Court House served as the meeting place of the Delaware Assembly.

During the 1700s, colonial Delaware actively participated in both the first and second Continental Congresses, and engaged in the debates over British actions and the question of independence. The Delaware Assembly met on June 15, 1776, in the New Castle Court House, where it voted to separate from England and from Pennsylvania, creating the "Delaware State." The Court House served as the capitol until 1777, when government functions moved to Dover as a precaution against attack from British warships in the Delaware River.

The Court House and the New Castle Historic District, including the Green, the Sheriff's House, and numerous additional resources from the time of earliest settlement through the Federal era, are National Historic Landmarks. The Green has served as a center of activity since the Dutch laid it out as the Public Square. The Sheriff's House, abutting the Court House on the Green, is architecturally significant and is all that remains of the State's first prison system. The New Castle Court House later provided the setting for a dramatic chapter in the history of the Underground Railroad: the criminal trial, presided over by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, of prominent Quaker abolitionist Thomas Garrett and his colleague John Hunn for assisting runaway slaves escaping from Maryland to Pennsylvania. In the trial Garrett defiantly asserted that he would continue to assist runaway slaves, as he did working with Harriet Tubman and other heroes of the Underground Railroad.

The Constitution of the United States was completed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, and then sent to the Congress of the Confederation for transmittal to the State legislatures. At the Golden Fleece Tavern on the Dover Green, a Delaware convention ratified the Constitution on December 7, 1787, earning Delaware the accolade of "the First State." Though the Tavern no longer exists, Dover Green is the central area of the Dover Green Historic District that signifies this event and many others, including the mustering of a Continental Regiment during the American Revolution and the reading of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

The boundary arc establishing the three "Lower Counties of Pennsylvania" that became the State of Delaware runs, in part, through Woodlawn, northwest of Wilmington. Woodlawn is situated on land in the Brandywine Valley acquired by William Penn in 1682. Penn commissioned a survey of this land that marked the 12-mile boundary arc through his property with tree blazes, which were replaced in 1892 with stone markers, two of which still stand. In 1699, Penn sold 2,000 acres of this property to the Pennsylvania Land Company, which in turn sold the land predominantly to Quakers, who had begun settling the area before 1690. In time, the Brandywine and Delaware valleys were more densely settled with Quakers than any other rural area in the United States. At least eight structures from the 18th century are known to be located at Woodlawn. Because Woodlawn has been relatively undisturbed, it still exhibits colonial and Quaker settlement patterns that have vanished elsewhere.

The preservation of Woodlawn is the result of the little-known but historically significant story of Quaker industrialist William Poole Bancroft's prescient planning efforts for the region. Beginning in 1906, Bancroft began to purchase property in the Brandywine Valley, 5 miles outside Wilmington city limits, to hold in reserve for the health and well-being of the public. Heir to the Bancroft textile mills on the Brandywine River, Bancroft eventually amassed over 1,300 acres, of which Woodlawn comprises approximately 1,100 acres that remain essentially the same as when he purchased them: farm fields and forest predominate, dotted with old farmsteads, bridges, and a few roads and trails.

Bancroft provided this rural landscape as part of an altruistic planning effort that also included affordable housing in the City of Wilmington and a system of parks and parkways, on which Frederick Law Olmsted consulted, that linked the neighborhoods to the green spaces. Bancroft established the Woodlawn Trustees to preserve much of the rural landscape as public park land where city residents could enjoy recreation and bucolic surroundings.

WHEREAS section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431) (the "Antiquities Act"), authorizes the President, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected;

WHEREAS, for the purpose of establishing a national monument, the State of Delaware has donated to the United States certain lands and interests in lands in New Castle, Delaware (including the Sheriff's House in fee, and an easement for the protection of and access to the New Castle Court House and the Green); the City of Dover has donated to the United States an easement for the protection of and access to the Dover Green; and the Conservation Fund, with the support of the Mt. Cuba Center and the cooperation of the Rockford Woodlawn Fund has donated the Woodlawn property to the United States in fee;

WHEREAS it is in the public interest to preserve and protect the objects of historic interest associated with the early settlement of Delaware, the role of Delaware as the first State to ratify the Constitution, and the establishment and conservation of Woodlawn;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by section 2 of the Antiquities Act, hereby proclaim, set apart, and reserve as the First State National Monument (monument), the objects identified above and all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States within the boundaries described on the accompanying maps, which are attached to and form a part of this proclamation, for the purpose of protecting those objects. These reserved Federal lands and interests in lands encompass approximately 1,108 acres, together with appurtenant easements for all necessary purposes, which is the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of the monument are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition under the public land laws, including withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing.

The establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights. Lands and interests in lands within the monument boundaries not owned or controlled by the United States shall be reserved as part of the monument upon acquisition of ownership or control by the United States.

The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall manage the monument through the National Park Service, pursuant to applicable legal authorities, consistent with the purposes and provisions of this proclamation. Further, to the extent authorized by law, the Secretary shall promulgate any additional regulations needed for the proper care and management of the monument.

The Secretary shall prepare a management plan for the monument, with full public involvement, within 3 years of the date of this proclamation. The management plan shall ensure that the monument fulfills the following purposes for the benefit of present and future generations: (1) to preserve and protect the objects of historic interest identified above; (2) to interpret the story of early Swedish, Finnish, Dutch, and English settlement in the region, and Delaware's role in the establishment of the Nation, including as the first State to ratify the Constitution; and (3) to preserve Woodlawn consistent with William Poole Bancroft's vision of a rural landscape accessible to the public for their health and well-being. The management plan shall set forth, among other provisions, the desired relationship of the monument to other related resources, programs, and organizations in the region, including Old Swedes Church, Fort Christina, Stonum, Lombardy Hall, Brandywine Creek State Park, Hagley Museum and Library, Nemours Mansion and Gardens, Winterthur Museum and Country Estate, Brandywine River Museum, Longwood Gardens, John Dickinson Plantation, and First State Heritage Park.

The National Park Service shall consult with State and local agencies and other appropriate organizations in planning for interpretation and visitor services at the monument. The

National Park Service is directed to use applicable authorities to seek to enter into agreements addressing common interests and promoting management efficiencies, including provision of visitor services, interpretation and education, and preservation of resources and values.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; however, the monument shall be the dominant reservation.

Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of the monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

President Obama signs proclamations establishing five new national monuments that celebrate our nation’s rich history and natural heritage.

Yesterday, President Obama celebrated Passover and touched upon the powerful symbols that it represents, and the inspiration it provides to him and to all people seeking a more just and peaceful future.

President Obama welcome 28 new American citizens to our nation of immigrants and called for reforms to our immigration system that will help harness the talent and ingenuity of all those like them who want to work hard and find a place here in America.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Remarks by President and President Peres of Israel at State Dinner

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President’s Residence
Jerusalem

8:15 P.M. IST

PRESIDENT PERES:  I think that's the President's remarks.  Mr. President, can I read your speech?  (Laughter.)  They are mistaken.  (Laughter.)

President Barack Obama, my dear friend, let me say first, Bravo.  Bravo, President.  (Applause.) 

It is my great pleasure to welcome you tonight.  I was moved the way in which you spoke to the heart of our young Israelis.  Our youngsters, in time of need, are always willing to stand up and defend their country.  Today, you have seen how much the same young people long for peace.  How enthusiastic they were, how engaged they were, listening to the vision of peace, which you beautifully delivered and moved the heart.

Mr. President, this morning several rockets were shot from the Gaza Strip towards civilian targets in Israel, including Sderot that you have visited.  From here, in the name of all us, I want to convey our love to the inhabitants of the south around Gaza who carry this heavy burden courageously and continue to plow their land, plant their trees, raise their children.  It is an inspiration to each of us.  Today, the enemies of peace spoke in the only language they know -- the language of terror.  I am convinced that together we shall defeat them. 

Dear Barack, your visit here is a historic event.  We are so happy to receive you and your distinguished delegation.  I am very glad to see Secretary John Kerry -- an old friend.  John, I know you are and I know you will be successful.  I'm not sure that the prophets have had speechwriters -- (laughter) -- but if they had, I imagine Isaiah would have said -- but actually he has said on that occasion -- and I'm quoting him, "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation." Well, you have to be satisfied with my language -- I cannot speak like him.  (Laughter.)

It is my privilege to present you with our country's highest honor -- the Medal of Distinction.  This award speaks to you, to your tireless work to make Israel strong, to make peace possible. Your presidency has given the closest ties between Israel and the United States a new height, a sense of intimacy, a vision for the future. 

The people of Israel are particularly moved by your unforgettable contribution to their security.  You are defending our skies -- to you, revelation in the name of intelligence, which is the right way to preempt bloodshed.  The diplomatic and the military bonds between us have reached an unprecedented level. 

When I visited you in Washington, I thought in my heart, America is so great and we are so small.  I learned that you don't measure us by size, but by values.  Thank you.  When it comes to values, we are you, and you are us.  On occasions when we were alone you stood with us, so we were not alone.  We were alone together.  We shall never forget it. 

During your previous visit to Israel, you asked me if I had any advice to offer.  Well, it's not my nature to let questions go unanswered.  (Laughter.)  So just that while people say that the future belongs to the young, it is the present that really belongs to the young.  Leave the future to me.  I have time.  (Laughter and applause.) 

I think I was right, because the moment you came into office, you immediately had to face daunting and demanding challenges day in, day out.  I prayed that you would meet them with wisdom and determination, without losing hope, without allowing others to lose hope.  The prayers were answered -- after all, they came from Jerusalem and they came to us as a great message.  It is a tribute to your leadership, to the strength of your character, to your principles, that you have never surrendered to hopelessness.  You stood and stand firmly by your vision.  Your values serve your nation.  They serve our nation as well.

So I know that you will never stop to strive for a better world, as you said today in a good Hebrew -- tikkun olam.  We have a rich heritage and a great dream.  As I look back, I feel that the Israel of today has exceeded the vision we had 65 years ago.  Reality has surpassed the dreams.  The United States of America helped us to make this possible. 

Still the path to tomorrow may be fraught with obstacles.  I believe that we can overcome them by our determination and by your commitment.  I'm convinced that you will do whatever is necessary to free the world's horizons and the skies of Jerusalem from the Iranian threat.  Iran denies the Shoah and calls for a new one.  Iran is building a nuclear bomb and denies it.  The Iranian regime is the greatest danger to world peace.  History has shown time and again that peace, prosperity and stable civil society cannot flourish when threats and belligerency abound. 

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight the Iranian people are celebrating their New Year.  I wish them from the depths of my heart a happy holiday and a real freedom. 

Israel will seize any opportunity for peace.  Being small, we have to maintain our qualitative edge.  I know that you responded and will respond to it.  The strength of Israel is its defense forces.  They afford us the ability to seek peace.  And what America has contributed to Israel's security is the best guarantee to end the march of folly, the march of terror and bloodshed. 

We watch with admiration the way you lead the United States of America, the way you have stayed true time and again to your bonds of friendship with us.  Your commitment and deeds speaks volumes about the principles that guides America.  To strive for freedom and democracy at home, but also all over the world, you send the boys to fight for the freedom of others.  What is uplifting is that the United States brought freedom not only to its own people, but never stops, and never will stop, to help other people to become free. 

You represent democracy at its best.  You have deepened its meaning -- namely that democracy is not just the right to be equal, but the equal right to be different.  Democracy is not just a free expression, but is self-expression as well. 

You exemplify the spirit of democracy by striving for justice and equality and opportunity in the American society.  As the world has now become global and yet remains individual, and you offer those principles.  You have shown global responsibility and individual sensitivity. 

On Monday night, Mr. President, we shall celebrate Passover, the Festival of Freedom, the Celebration of Spring.  The Celebration of Spring means our journey from the house of slaves to the home of the free that started more than 3,000 years ago. We remember it every year.  We are commended to feel as though each of us personally participated in that journey.  We shall not forget where we came from.  We shall remember always where we are headed, too, which is to make the Promised Land a land of promise, a land of freedom, justice and equality. 

While reality calls for vigilance, Passover calls to remain believers.  Israel is an island in a stormy sea.  We have to make our island safe and we wish that the sea will become tranquil.  We converted our desert into a garden.  It was achieved by the talents of our people and the potential of science.  What we have done, Mr. President, can be done all over the Middle East, as you have rightly said tonight.  Israel is described as a start-up nation.  The Middle East can become a start-up region. 

Dear President, you noted in your address today that peace is the greatest hope for the human being.  I share your vision.  Your call to reopen the peace process may pave the way for the implementation of the two-state solution agreed by all of us -- as you said, a Jewish state, Israel; an Arab state, Palestine. 

If I'm not wrong, next to you sits our Prime Minister who was just reelected.  He opened his address in the Knesset by reiterating his commitment to the two-state solution.  Dear friends, I have seen in my life I earned the right to believe that peace is attainable.  As you felt today, I know, this is the deep conviction of our people.  With our resolve and your support, Barack Obama, we shall win and it will happen. 

Mr. President, I am privileged to bestow upon you the Medal of Distinction.  It was recommended by a committee of seven prominent Israeli citizens, headed by our former Chief of Justice Meir Shamgar, and includes our former President Yitzhak Navon.  It was my view and I was glad to accept their recommendation.  You inspired the world with your leadership.  Toda raba, Mr. President.  Toda from a grateful nation to a very great leader. 

God bless America.  God bless Israel.  (Applause.) 

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  President Peres; Prime Minister Netanyahu and First Lady Sara; distinguished guests and friends.  This is a extraordinary honor for me and I could not be more deeply moved. And I have to say, after the incredible welcome I’ve received over the past two days and the warmth of the Israeli people, the tribute from President Peres, the honor of this medal -- I mean, as you say, dayenu.  ((Applause.)
Now, I’m told that the Talmud teaches that you shouldn’t pronounce all the praises of a person in their presence.  And, Mr. President, if I praised all the chapters of your remarkable life, then we would be here all night.  (Laughter.)  So let me simply say this about our gracious host.

Mr. President, the State of Israel has been the cause of your life -- through bitter wars and fragile peace, through hardship and prosperity.  You’ve built her.  You’ve cared for her.  You’ve strengthened her.  You’ve nurtured the next generation who will inherit her. 

Ben Gurion.  Meir.  Begin.  Rabin.  These giants have left us.  Only you are with us still -- a founding father in our midst.  And we are so grateful for your vision, your friendship, but most of all, for your example, including the example of your extraordinary vitality.  Every time I see your President I ask him who his doctor is.  (Laughter.)  We all want to know the secret.

So, with gratitude for your life and your service, and as you prepare to celebrate your 90th birthday this summer -- and since I’m starting to get pretty good at Hebrew -- (laughter) -- let me propose a toast -- even though you’ve taken away my wine
-- (laughter.)  Come on.  Bring another.

How are you?

SERVER:  Here you are, sir.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  A toast -- ad me’ah ve’esrim.  L’chaim! (Applause.)  Mmm, that's good wine.  (Laughter.)  Actually, we should probably get this out of the photograph.  All these people will say I'm having too much fun in Israel.  (Laughter.) 

Just a few more words, Mr. President.  You mentioned that this medal is presented in recognition of progress toward the ideals of equality and opportunity and justice.  But I am mindful that I stand here tonight because of so many others, including the example and the sacrifices of the Jewish people.

In a few days, as we do at every Seder, we’ll break and hide a piece of matzoh.  It’s a great way to entertain the kids.  Malia and Sasha, even though they are getting older, they still enjoy it -- and there are a lot of good places to hide it in the White House.  (Laughter.)  But on a much deeper level, it speaks to the scope of our human experience -- how parts of our lives can be broken while other parts can be elusive; how we can never give up searching for the things that make us whole.  And few know this better than the Jewish people. 

After slavery and decades in the wilderness and with Moses gone, the future of the Israelites was in doubt.  But with Joshua as their guide, they pushed on to victory.  After the First Temple was destroyed, it seemed Jerusalem was lost.  But with courage and resolve, the Second Temple reestablished the Jewish presence.  After centuries of persecution and pogroms, the Shoah aimed to eliminate the entire Jewish people.  But the gates of the camps flew open, and there emerged the ultimate rebuke to hate and to ignorance -- survivors would live and love again.

When the moment of Israel’s independence was met by aggression on all sides, it was unclear whether this nation would survive.  But with heroism and sacrifice, the State of Israel not only endured, but thrived.  And during six days in June and Yom Kippur one October, it seemed as though all you had built might be lost.  But when the guns fell silent it was clear -- “the nation of Israel lives.”

As I said in my speech earlier today, this story -- from slavery to salvation, of overcoming even the most overwhelming odds -- is a message that’s inspired the world.  And that includes Jewish Americans but also African Americans, who have so often had to deal with their own challenges, but with whom you have stood shoulder to shoulder. 

African Americans and Jewish Americans marched together at Selma and Montgomery, with rabbis carrying the Torah as they walked.  They boarded buses for freedom rides together.  They bled together.  They gave their lives together -- Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner alongside  African American, James Chaney. 

Because of their sacrifice, because of the struggle of generations in both our countries, we can come together tonight, in freedom and in security.  So if I can paraphrase the Psalm -- they turned our mourning into dancing; they changed our sack cloths into robes of joy. 

And this evening, I’d like to close with the words of two leaders who brought us some of this joy.  Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was born in Poland and lost his mother and sisters to the Nazis.  He came to America.  He raised his voice for social justice.  He marched with Martin Luther King.  And he spoke of the State of Israel in words that could well describe the struggle for equality in America.  “Our very existence is a witness that man must live toward redemption,” he said, and “that history is not always made by man alone.”

Rabbi Joachim Prinz was born in Germany, expelled by the Nazis and found refuge in America, and he built support for the new State of Israel.  And on that August day in 1963, he joined Dr. King at the March on Washington.  And this is what Rabbi Prinz said to the crowd:

“In the realm of the spirit, our fathers taught us thousands of years ago that when God created man, he created him as everybody's neighbor.  Neighbor is not a geographic concept.  It is a moral concept.  It means our collective responsibility for the preservation of man's dignity and integrity.”

President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, friends -- our very existence, our presence here tonight, is a testament that all things are possible, even those things that, in moments of darkness and doubt, may seem elusive.  The stories of our peoples teach us to never stop searching for the things -- the justice and the peace -- that make us whole.  And so we go forward together, with confidence, we'll know that while our countries may be separated by a great ocean, in the realm of the spirit we will always be neighbors and friends.

I very humbly accept this award, understanding that I'm accepting it on behalf of the American people, who are joined together with you.

May God bless you and may He watch over our two great nations.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
8:44 P.M. IST

First Lady Michelle Obama (and First Dog Bo) celebrate an early Easter with military families

The general becomes the first African-American in the post.

In the latest installment of the audio series "Being Biden," the Vice President takes you to St. Peter's Basilica, just after the Inauguration Mass of Pope Francis.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Medicaid Expansion and State Health Exchanges: A Risky Proposition for the States

Recent decisions by the Obama Administration concerning the health care exchanges and Medicaid expansion underscore what a risky proposition the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is for the states. Congress presumed in PPACA (Obamacare) that the states would agree to build and run exchanges and could be forced to expand Medicaid. The Supreme Court, however, ruled the Medicaid expansion voluntary, which has made states increasingly concerned over new burdens related to costs, control, and coverage—in both the exchanges and Medicaid.

State Health Care Exchanges

Cost. Proponents deflect attention from the true cost of the exchanges by focusing on the PPACA grants to fund states establishing them. However, unlike past federal-state policy ventures, like Medicaid or even the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), there will be no steady flow of federal dollars to the states. The law specifies that starting in 2015, any state implementing a state exchange must develop its own revenue source to fund the exchange’s annual operations. That puts the long-term costs squarely on the states.

Moreover, the recent announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that it will levy a 3.5 percent administrative fee on coverage sold through the federally run exchanges indicates there are significant costs if a state agrees to run its own exchange.[1]

Just this week a Maryland panel recommended to that state’s governor and legislature new taxes and fees to fund its state exchange.[2] The Maryland report projects annual administrative costs for the state’s exchange of $201 per enrollee in 2015, declining to $152 per enrollee in 2017.

In contrast, applying the 3.5 percent fee set by HHS to the $2,770 national average per-capita premium for all commercial group and individual major medical insurance sold in 2011 yields a projected annual administrative cost for exchanges of $97 per enrollee. The much higher Maryland figures are significant as they reflect thorough and detailed work by the state most committed to implementing a state Obamacare exchange.[3]

Control. Some argue that states should establish exchanges as a means to maintain control of their markets. However, in all matters not otherwise preempted by federal law, the states still regulate insurers (including those participating in the exchanges) regardless of who operates the exchange. States can also regulate exchange “navigators” through state professional licensure statutes to ensure a level playing field with existing insurance agents, regardless of who operates the exchange.

Furthermore, regulations promulgated by HHS allow states no meaningful flexibility or advantage by operating their own exchanges, relative to a federal exchange. Those states would simply be acting as vendors to HHS.

Coverage. Proponents point to the exchange as essential to expanding coverage. However, the law also created a federal default for states declining to establish exchanges. Therefore, the responsibility shifts to the federal government. With more Americans still opposed to the law than supporting it, the innumerable technical challenges to implementation, and large and uncertain future costs, there is a significant risk that the whole law could unravel, or even collapse, before fully taking effect. Given those prospects, states that agree to run exchanges could face significant fallout from failures at the federal level over which they have no control. Instead, a state should focus on creating a viable market for their citizens in the event that the law breaks down.

Medicaid Expansion

Cost. As proponents attempt to convince states that the cost of the Medicaid expansion will be covered by the federal government, the facts remain the same. To start with, the enhanced match is only for the expansion population, not the existing Medicaid population. In addition, it does not apply to administrative costs, which add about 5 percent to benefit payments. Finally, the full 100 percent enhanced match is temporary, with states picking up 10 percent of the new costs in 2020 and thereafter. At a time when Medicaid is already overwhelming current state budgets, it would be counterproductive for states to voluntarily add to those liabilities.

In addition, there are numerous other cost pressures states need to consider when assessing the expansion.[4] First, states will see increased enrollment among the non-expansion population as the law also expands eligibility by changing how income is measured and corrals those eligible, but not enrolled, into the program.

Second, states will face pressure from their hospitals to backfill $18 billion in federal payment cuts for uncompensated care. Third, the PPACA lifts Medicaid reimbursement for primary care physicians to Medicare levels, with federal funding of the difference—but only for two years. Once the federal funding expires, states will face pressure to maintain those levels and to increase payments to other physicians accepting Medicaid.

Moreover, regardless of HHS’s recent claim that it has backed away from previous proposals to shift Medicaid funding to a blended rate, the fiscal challenges facing Medicaid at the state and federal level make future financing adjustments to Medicaid unavoidable.

Control. While the HHS Secretary has touted offering flexibility to the states, the law and HHS regulations offer states no meaningful policy discretion. Specifically, the law extends the maintenance of effort (MOE) restriction from the stimulus law that prevents states from making key changes to their Medicaid programs. Moreover, the recent HHS decision to eliminate any possibility of a state expanding its Medicaid program short of the 138 percent federal poverty level (FPL) further underscores that flexibility was more talk than action. 

Coverage. As with the exchanges, proponents stress the importance of Medicaid in expanding coverage. Unlike the federal default in the exchange, there is no federal default for the Medicaid expansion. However, rather than throwing more people into a broken program, states should focus on improving the current program and developing sustainable alternatives for meeting the needs of the proposed expansion population.

Fighting Back to Minimize the Damage of Bad Decisions

Sometimes opposing bad policy—such as by declining to run exchanges or expand Medicaid— while important, is not enough. In those instances, lawmakers need to work to minimize the impact of bad policies that they are unable to fully reverse. They also need to insist on transparency, accountability, and a level playing field, so as to create public awareness of the true consequences of bad policies and build support for future reforms.

Still a Risky Proposition for the States

Enormous uncertainty still surrounds the health care law. With less than one year remaining before the major provisions of Obamacare take effect, it is no surprise that barely more than one-fifth of states have publically agreed to both establish a state exchange and expand their Medicaid programs. The other states would be wise to decline those risky steps and instead prepare better alternatives for health care reform.

—Nina Owcharenko is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies and Preston A. Wells, Jr., Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Edmund F. Haislmaier is Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[3]Author’s calculations using premium and enrollment data from Mark Farrah Associates, http://www.markfarrah.com/. In 2011, U.S. commercial insurers wrote $198,334,667,140 in group and individual major medical premiums covering 71,597,719 individuals.

View the original article here

State Efforts To ‘Reclaim’ Our Public Lands Traced To Koch-Fueled ALEC

By Jessica Goad and Tom Kenworthy via CAP

Despite the many problems that states and municipalities face today—from budget shortfalls to unemployment—seven western states have decided to embark on unconstitutional and quixotic battles attempting to force the federal government to turn millions of acres of public lands over to the states. Doing so, however, would result in the eventual exploitation for private profits of these beautiful parks, refuges, forests, and other lands because the leaders driving such efforts would prefer to see quick economic gains from resource extraction rather than prioritizing these areas’ more sustainable economic uses such as recreation.

Rather than being managed so that all Americans can enjoy them, turning our public lands over to states would result in their management on the whims of governors and state legislatures, who in the West are often quite conservative and tend to ideologically favor limited regulation and private profits. According to one state lands commissioner, these bills would be “catastrophic” to the public lands that Americans know and love.

Clashes between states and the federal government over their respective authorities have long been a regular feature of our politics, especially when it comes to issues regarding control over federal public lands in the West. More than 700 million acres of federal public lands, including national parks, national forests, and national monuments, belong to all Americans, and are tremendous economic generators—the Department of the Interior stimulated $385 billion in economic development and more than 2 million jobs in 2011 alone. At times, conflicts over ownership of the federally managed parks, forests, refuges, and other properties have grown into a regional cause in the West, as they did during the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” a political movement demanding the turnover of federal lands to the states that arose in the 1970s but eventually fizzled out in the late 1980s.

We are now seeing yet another iteration of that hardy but misguided western impulse. These state legislative efforts are nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools that can be traced to conservative front groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, and Americans for Prosperity, as we discuss further below. The proposals run directly contrary to abundant evidence that Americans and westerners support federal management of their public lands and value the economic benefits those lands provide, especially when they are protected from mining and drilling and are used instead for recreation and other more sustainable purposes.

In the past year, legislatures in seven western states — Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho — have passed, introduced, or explored legislation demanding that the federal government turn over millions of acres of federal public lands to the states. If successful, these bills could be disastrous: Rather than being managed for the benefit and use of the American public, these lands will instead be managed in whatever way each state wants to use them—which generally means maximizing private profits through mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.

These lawmakers are waging a losing battle that amounts to little more than political grandstanding to rally their extreme conservative base and feed an antigovernment narrative. Such bills contradict the majority of public opinion in these states, as well as economic realities and constitutional precedent dating back to the mid-19th century.

ALEC and Americans for Prosperity have been fanning the fire under these efforts to “reclaim” federal public lands. ALEC is a conservative corporate front group funded by fossil-fuel interests such as the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil that develops model legislation for state legislators to introduce in their legislatures, and it has endorsed many of the bills turning public lands over to the states. As the Associated Press reported, “Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.”

That should come as little surprise, considering that one of ALEC’s “model bills” — those that it drafts and develops to shop to various state legislators — is the “Sagebrush Rebellion Act,” which was “designed to establish a mechanism for the transfer of ownership of” non-state lands “from the federal government to the states.”

Further evidence that ALEC is the puppet master behind these performances: Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory (R), who is leading the charge for states to “take back” public lands through his “American Lands Council,” has been presenting the idea of turning federal land over to the states at ALEC conferences such as the one in Salt Lake City last summer. Additionally, Rep. Ivory has been promoting this idea to various state legislatures — he spoke, for example, with Wyoming’s Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Interim Committee in October 2012.

Proponents of these bills claim that the states do not receive tax revenue from federal lands and argue that the proceeds from turning the land over to the states to then be further developed can help fund essential state services such as education. They also argue that the federal government promised to turn public lands over to the states at the establishment of their statehoods more than 100 years ago.

This issue brief provides an overview of each state’s attempt to force the turnover of public lands, and then describes why this is not only bad policy that is not in accordance with what westerners actually believe, but is also unconstitutional based on numerous Supreme Court decisions.

State efforts to ‘reclaim’ public lands

In this section, we provide an overview of each of the bills in seven western states and detail where they are in the legislative process.

Utah

The Outdoor Industry Association, the trade organization for outdoor recreation companies, notes that the outdoor economy — in part based on protected public lands — stimulates $12 billion in consumer spending and more than 122,000 jobs for Utah every year. This extraordinary economic resource will be threatened if the state succeeds in its attempt to take over public lands and instead use them for resource extraction.

Despite this, Utah has been leading the charge when it comes to state attempts to reclaim public lands. Rep. Ivory sponsored the Transfer of Public Lands Act and Related Study, a bill that passed both the state House and Senate and was signed into law by Gov. Gary Herbert (R) in March 2012. The bill established a deadline of December 31, 2014, for the federal government to turn over Utah’s nearly 20 million acres of public lands to the state, or it will sue.

Utah’s Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel noted that the case law with regard to public lands going back to the 1870s gives the bill “a high probability of being declared unconstitutional.” And the Salt Lake Tribune has called Utah’s effort “tilting at windmills.”
Despite this, the Utah state legislature has already appropriated nearly $3 million to cover expected state legal expenses and has set up the Utah Land Commission to oversee the process of returning the lands to the state.

While the bill exempts Native American lands, national parks, and military installations, it still could have a major impact on some of Utah’s most special places. One Utah publication, for example, notes that “While [Ivory] doesn’t say this will happen, it is possible that the huge coal fields now off limits because of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah could be developed by the new state land commission.”

Arizona

The outdoor recreation economy in Arizona creates $10.6 billion in consumer spending and supports nearly 104,000 jobs in the state. Yet State Sen. Al Melvin (R) introduced S.B. 1332 in the spring of 2012 requiring Congress to turn over 25 million acres of public lands to the state by the end of 2014, or it would sue. Similar to the legislation in Utah, the Arizona bill would have exempted Indian reservations, national parks, and military lands.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), however, vetoed the bill in May 2012, surprising many observers due to her conservative background. She justified her veto by saying she was “concerned about the lack of certainty this legislation could create for individuals holding existing leases on federal lands. Given the difficult economic times, I do not believe this is the time to add to that uncertainty.”

Arizona voters also took to the polls to fight against a ballot initiative that similarly would have turned public lands over to the state. Proposition 120, supported by state Republican legislators, would have amended the state’s constitution to “declare Arizona’s sovereignty and jurisdiction over the ‘air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within the state’s boundaries.’” This measure would have included turning the Grand Canyon over to the state, but the ballot measure was defeated 68 percent to 32 percent.

Wyoming

Although the Outdoor Industry Association released data noting that the outdoor economy creates $4.5 billion in consumer spending and 50,000 direct jobs in Wyoming, State Rep. David Miller (R) introduced a bill in early February 2013 demanding state ownership of public lands. The bill — H.B. 0228, known as the Transfer of Federal Lands Study — would require the state attorney general to study “possible legal recourses available to compel the federal government to relinquish ownership and management of specified federal lands in Wyoming,” and would establish a task force focused on the land transfer. The bill passed both houses of the state legislature earlier this year and now awaits the governor’s signature.

Rep. Miller is also the CEO of a uranium mining company and told WyoFile, a local news outlet, that he got the idea for his bill in Wyoming from Utah Rep. Ivory’s presentation at last summer’s ALEC conference in Salt Lake City.

Notably, however, the Wyoming attorney general’s office wrote an opinion stating that Utah’s federal land transfer laws relied on “a repeatedly rejected reading of the United States Constitution and a strained interpretation of Utah’s statehood act.”

New Mexico

The state of New Mexico sees $6.1 billion in consumer spending stimulated by the outdoor recreation industry, as well as more than 68,000 jobs every year. Nevertheless, New Mexico State Rep. Yvette Herrell (R) and State Sen. Richard Martinez (D) introduced the Transfer of Public Land Act in early 2013, calling on the federal government to turn 23 million acres of New Mexico’s public lands over to the state by the end of 2015. It also would create a public lands transfer task force to study the process of taking ownership of these federal lands.

Jumping into this fray is the Koch-backed conservative group Americans for Prosperity, which called the bill “an exciting change” and urged its members to call the state legislature to express support. On the other hand, the state’s lands commissioner stated that the bill would be “catastrophic,” and noted that a fiscal impact analysis shows that if public lands were transferred to the state, the office would “need 2,000 more employees and an additional $218 million to administer the land at the same level as the federal government.”

The bill is currently in the legislative process, and it is unclear what New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez’s (R) position is on it.

Colorado

Colorado is a hotspot for the outdoor recreation economy, which stimulates $13.2 billion in consumer spending and nearly 125,000 direct jobs to the state. But a handful of members in the Colorado state legislature are attempting to revive a failed attempt of last year’s legislative session by introducing a bill — known as S.B. 13-142 — which would require the federal government to turn over all “agricultural lands” to the state. The law’s broad definition of agricultural lands certainly includes the more than 14 million acres of national forests in the state and likely includes its Bureau of Land Management lands.

State Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R) and State Sen. Scott Renfroe (R) introduced the bill in late January 2013, requiring the federal government to turn these lands over to the state by December 31, 2014. The bill, however, failed in committee in early February.
A similar bill failed in last year’s legislative session after much criticism from public and statewide opinion leaders. As a Denver Post columnist put it at the time, “We are all hoping this goes away very quickly.”

Nevada

Nevada sees $14.9 billion created by the outdoor recreation industry every year, as well as 148,000 direct jobs. And yet Nevada Assemblyman John Ellison (R) and State Sen. Pete Goicoechea (R) are drafting a bill for the 2013 legislative session that would create a committee “to help broker the transfer of federal land to the state,” according to the Elko Daily Free Press. Legislation is still being drafted as of late February.

Specifically modeled after the Utah bill, the Nevada bill would create a Nevada Land Management Implementation Committee appointed by county commissioners, which would conduct a study anticipating the effects that a land transfer would have on the state “in contemplation of Congress turning over the management and control of those public lands to the State of Nevada on or before June 30, 2015.”

Idaho

The outdoor recreation economy creates $6.3 billion in consumer spending in Idaho per year, as well as 77,000 direct jobs. While the Idaho legislature has not yet officially considered a bill to turn some or all of the state’s 33 million acres of public lands over to the state, discussions and preparations to do so are in the works. State Rep. Lawerence Denney (R), chairman of the state’s Resources and Conservation Committee, has expressed interest in introducing such a bill. Utah Rep. Ivory addressed a joint meeting of the state’s House Resources and Conservation Committee and Senate Resources and Environment Committee in late January 2013, lauding the Utah bill and its merits.

The idea of selling off public lands has not, however, seen political success in Idaho. The Associated Press reports that in the state’s 2006 gubernatorial race, now-Gov. Butch Otter (R) was forced to withdraw his support for federal legislation that would sell off public lands in the West to offset costs of Hurricane Katrina — only after “getting bruised by his political challengers and voters irritated by the possibility of losing some of Idaho’s prized backcountry.”

State efforts are seriously misguided

This section outlines the three main reasons why state attempts to “take back” public lands are misguided: People in these states do not believe there is a problem; the economic arguments don’t pan out; and the efforts are unconstitutional.

People in these states don’t think there is a problem

Central to the intent behind and promotion of these bills is the notion that people living in these seven states are upset about the job that the federal government is doing when it comes to managing public lands, and that there is too much public land preventing resource development. But conservative ideologues are wrong in this regard, which is indicated in the data below.

A recent poll from Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project, for example, asked western voters whether they think having “too much public land” is a problem. Here are the answers—either that it is a “serious” problem or that it isn’t a problem—by state:

While this poll did not cover Idaho and Nevada, recent polls in those states show similar sentiments. A poll in Idaho, for instance, determined that 73 percent of Idahoans agree that “One of the things our federal government does well is protect and preserve our national heritage through the management of forests, national parks and other public lands.” And in Nevada, two-thirds of small-business owners believe that allowing private companies to develop public lands “would limit the public’s enjoyment of them.”

Despite what conservatives want to think, the western public understands that there is a role for the federal government in managing public lands and doesn’t want to see the land turned over to states or private interests.

Economic arguments don’t pan out

Another key argument that proponents of such bills make is that the federal government is “locking up” public lands that could be used for economic development such as mining and drilling. To make this argument more appealing, some of the bills transfer a portion of the funds from selling or developing lands to state public education funds and send the rest to relieve the national debt. As Utah Rep. Ivory put it, “If we unleash those resources in a responsible, sustainable manner, that’s a matter of national employment. That’s a matter of national economic GDP growth; that’s a matter of national deficit and debt reduction.”

But conservatives miss two key points in making these economic arguments. First, public lands already provide an extraordinary economic impact, both from traditional resource development currently allowed on the lands such as mining, drilling, and timber, and from outdoor recreation on protected lands. Second, they fail to note that adequately managing millions more acres of land will be very difficult for states facing budget constraints.

Public lands provide tremendous economic impacts. The Department of the Interior—the agency that manages most public lands — stimulated $385 billion in economic development and more than 2 million jobs in 2011 alone. This number includes the extraction of oil, gas, coal, and other minerals from public lands, in addition to timber, grazing, and recreation. Recreation-related activities alone created 403,000 jobs and nearly $49 billion in economic activity across the country. The U.S. Forest Service, which manages national forests, also has major economic impacts — visitor spending on recreation in and near national forests, for example, added $13 billion to gross domestic product and sustained 200,000 jobs across the country in fiscal year 2011.

The fact that public lands create jobs is echoed in public sentiment. In six western states, for example, 79 percent of voters believe that public lands support the economy, while only 15 percent believe they “take land off the tax rolls, cost government to maintain them, and prevent opportunities for logging and oil and gas production that could provide jobs.”

Regarding the second point about states likely not being prepared for the burden of managing an influx of public lands, Jodi Peterson of High Country News, a publication based in Paonia, Colorado, says it best:

If that transfer ever does occur, the old adage “Be careful what you wish for” might apply. Cash-strapped states would have trouble covering even minimal management of former federal land … [and] there aren’t ready buyers for these millions of acres.

The attempts are unconstitutional

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that these attempts are unconstitutional, according to case law dating back to the 1800s, and therefore will only serve to waste state taxpayers’ money. Each of the state attempts to force Congress to turn over public lands references the state’s enabling act—the language that made it a state to begin with. Proponents say the federal government has not kept its promise to give the public lands back to the states.

But in reality this is just not true. Each of these enabling acts that the states agreed to in order to become members of the union renounced their claims to federal public lands. Here are the relevant sections of each state constitution or enabling act:

Utah: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”Arizona: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated and ungranted public lands lying within the boundaries thereof and to all lands lying within said boundaries”Wyoming: “The people inhabiting this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”New Mexico: “That the people inhabiting said proposed state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated and ungranted public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”Colorado: “That the people inhabiting said Territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory”Nevada: “That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States”Idaho: “And the people of the state of Idaho do agree and declare that we forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”

In even further proof that these are attempts are unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken many times on this issue. Ironically, the case law in this regard was discussed by Utah’s own Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel in its opinion on the Utah bill, stating:

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that “[w]ith respect to the public domain, the Constitution vests in Congress the power of disposition and of making all needful rules and regulations. That power is subject to no limitations. Congress has the absolute right to prescribe the times, the conditions, and the mode of transferring this property, or any part of it, and to designate the persons to whom the transfer shall be made. No State legislation can interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise; and to prevent the possibility of any attempted interference with it, a provision has been usually inserted in the compacts by which new States have been admitted to the Union, that such interference with the primary disposal of the soil of the United States shall never be made.” Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92 (1872).

Additionally, a Congressional Research Service report in 2007 on the history of federal land management and the Constitution noted that:

The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to lands. Article IV, § 3, Clause 2—the Property Clause—gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’s power to legislate under this Clause as “without limitation.” The equal footing doctrine (based on language within Article IV, § 3, Clause 1), and found in state enabling acts, provides new states with equality to the original states in terms of constitutional rights, but has not been used successfully to force the divestment of federal lands. The policy question of whether to acquire more, or to dispose of any or all, federal lands is left to Congress to decide.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that those living in these seven states do not fundamentally agree with the attempts to “take back” public lands, that the economic arguments for it are incomplete, and that the efforts are unconstitutional, conservatives in these state legislatures across the West have still introduced bills demanding the federal government turn federal public lands over to the states. Efforts in Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Idaho are misguided and merely serve to fan the fire of extreme and fruitless rhetoric at the taxpayers’ expense.

Jessica Goad is Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow at the Center. This article was reprinted from CAP with permission.

Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of this issue brief.

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

View the original article here

Booker: ‘Clearly’ interested in Senate bid, but focus now on helping win state races

Newark Mayor Cory Booker said Sunday that he would focus his attention on helping his state elect a Democratic governor before addressing a possible 2014 Senate bid.

Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” if he would seek the 2014 seat to be vacated by retiring Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Booker said “clearly it’s a job that I’m interested in.”

“I’ll spend the coming months working on and exploring that, but right now we have one election in New Jersey and that’s our state-wide gubernatorial and legislative elections. As a Democrat in New Jersey, that’s where my focus is,” he added. “Next year’s election for Senate will take care of itself.”

Booker’s path to the Senate opened up this week after Lautenberg announced Thursday that he would retire from the upper chamber. 

"While I may not be seeking reelection, there is plenty of work to do before the end of this term and I'm going to keep fighting as hard as ever for the people of New Jersey in the U.S. Senate,” said the 89-year old senator.

Booker had indicated earlier this year that he was exploring a run for Lautenberg’s seat in 2014, but had not said whether he would be willing to launch a primary challenge against the long-serving fellow Democrat.

His decision, though, had sparked criticism from other Democrats in the state, who had hoped Booker would instead challenge incumbent GOP Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) this year.

Lautenberg’s decision will likely clear a path for other possible contenders, including Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), whom many sources say is considering a bid. 

 “I hope to be one of those people that the residents of New Jersey will consider giving me that honor to fight for them on a federal level,” said Booker on Sunday.

But he added: “We in New jersey take one election at a time. 2014 is a long way off.”

View Comments

View the original article here

Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address

Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Immigration Reform Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2012 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Speeches & Remarks   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release February 12, 2013 Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address

 

U.S. CapitolWashington, D.C.   9:15 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT:  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, fellow citizens:   Fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress.”  (Applause.) “It is my task,” he said, “to report the State of the Union -- to improve it is the task of us all.”   Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report.  After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home.  (Applause.)  After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs.  We buy more American cars than we have in five years, and less foreign oil than we have in 20.  (Applause.)  Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before.  (Applause.)   So, together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and we can say with renewed confidence that the State of our Union is stronger.  (Applause.)  But we gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded.  Our economy is adding jobs -- but too many people still can’t find full-time employment.  Corporate profits have skyrocketed to all-time highs -- but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged.   It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class.  (Applause.)   It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country -- the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like, or who you love. It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.  (Applause.)  The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem.  They don’t expect those of us in this chamber to agree on every issue.  But they do expect us to put the nation’s interests before party.  (Applause.)  They do expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can.  For they know that America moves forward only when we do so together, and that the responsibility of improving this union remains the task of us all. Our work must begin by making some basic decisions about our budget -- decisions that will have a huge impact on the strength of our recovery. Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion -- mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.  As a result, we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.     Now we need to finish the job.  And the question is, how?  In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year.  These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness.  They’d devastate priorities like education, and energy, and medical research.  They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.  That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as the sequester, are a really bad idea.   Now, some in Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training, Medicare and Social Security benefits.  That idea is even worse.  (Applause.)   Yes, the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population.  And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms -- otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations.   But we can’t ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and the most powerful.  (Applause.)  We won’t grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers and more cops and more firefighters.  Most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.  They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share.  And that’s the approach I offer tonight.  On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.  (Applause.)   Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.  (Applause.)  And the reforms I’m proposing go even further.  We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors.  (Applause.)  We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital; they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive.  (Applause.)  And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement.  Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep -- but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.  (Applause.)  To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and the well-connected.  After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks?  How is that fair?  Why is it that deficit reduction is a big emergency justifying making cuts in Social Security benefits but not closing some loopholes?  How does that promote growth?  (Applause.)  Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit.  (Applause.)  We can get this done.  The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring -- a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can’t work the system and pay a lower rate than their hardworking secretaries; a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas, and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that are creating jobs right here in the United States of America.  That’s what tax reform can deliver.  That’s what we can do together.  (Applause.)  I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy.  The politics will be hard for both sides.  None of us will get 100 percent of what we want.  But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans.  So let’s set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future.  And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors.  (Applause.)  The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next.  (Applause.)  We can't do it.   Let’s agree right here, right now to keep the people’s government open, and pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America.  (Applause.)  The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.  (Applause.)   Now, most of us agree that a plan to reduce the deficit must be part of our agenda.  But let’s be clear, deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan.  (Applause.)  A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs -- that must be the North Star that guides our efforts.  (Applause.)  Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation:  How do we attract more jobs to our shores?  How do we equip our people with the skills they need to get those jobs?  And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?  A year and a half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than 1 million new jobs.  And I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda.  I urge this Congress to pass the rest.  (Applause.)  But tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago.  Let me repeat -- nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime.  It is not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth.  (Applause.)  That's what we should be looking for.  Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.  After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three.  Caterpillar is bringing jobs back from Japan.  Ford is bringing jobs back from Mexico.  And this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.  (Applause.) There are things we can do, right now, to accelerate this trend.  Last year, we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in Youngstown, Ohio.  A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything.  There’s no reason this can’t happen in other towns.   So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Department of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs.  And I ask this Congress to help create a network of 15 of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made right here in America.  We can get that done.  (Applause.) Now, if we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas.  Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy -- every dollar.  Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s.  They’re developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs; devising new material to make batteries 10 times more powerful.  Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation.  Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race.  We need to make those investments.  (Applause.)  Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy.  After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future.  We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.  (Applause.)  We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good American jobs to show for it.  We produce more natural gas than ever before -- and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.  And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen. But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.  (Applause.)  Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend.  But the fact is the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.  Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods -- all are now more frequent and more intense.  We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence.  Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science -- and act before it’s too late.  (Applause.) Now, the good news is we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth.  I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago.  But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.  (Applause.)  I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy. Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it.  And we’ve begun to change that.  Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America.  So let’s generate even more.  Solar energy gets cheaper by the year -- let’s drive down costs even further. As long as countries like China keep going all in on clean energy, so must we. Now, in the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence.  We need to encourage that.  And that’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.  (Applause.)  That’s got to be part of an all-of-the-above plan.  But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and our water. In fact, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together.  So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.  If a nonpartisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we.  Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.   I’m also issuing a new goal for America:  Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.  (Applause.)  We'll work with the states to do it.  Those states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make that happen. America’s energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair.  Ask any CEO where they’d rather locate and hire -- a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and Internet; high-tech schools, self-healing power grids.  The CEO of Siemens America -- a company that brought hundreds of new jobs to North Carolina -- said that if we upgrade our infrastructure, they’ll bring even more jobs.  And that’s the attitude of a lot of companies all around the world.  And I know you want these job-creating projects in your district.  I’ve seen all those ribbon-cuttings. (Laughter.)   So tonight, I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. (Applause.)  And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most:  modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, modern schools worthy of our children.  (Applause.)  Let’s prove that there’s no better place to do business than here in the United States of America, and let’s start right away.  We can get this done. And part of our rebuilding effort must also involve our housing sector.  The good news is our housing market is finally healing from the collapse of 2007.  Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in six years.  Home purchases are up nearly 50 percent, and construction is expanding again.   But even with mortgage rates near a 50-year low, too many families with solid credit who want to buy a home are being rejected.  Too many families who never missed a payment and want to refinance are being told no.  That’s holding our entire economy back.  We need to fix it.   Right now, there’s a bill in this Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing at today’s rates.  Democrats and Republicans have supported it before, so what are we waiting for? Take a vote, and send me that bill.  (Applause.)  Why would we be against that?  (Applause.)  Why would that be a partisan issue, helping folks refinance?  Right now, overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home.  What’s holding us back?  Let’s streamline the process, and help our economy grow. These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, housing -- all these things will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create new jobs.  But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs.  (Applause.)   And that has to start at the earliest possible age.  Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road.  But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program.  Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for a private preschool.  And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives.  So tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in America.  (Applause.)  That's something we should be able to do.   Every dollar we invest in high-quality early childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on -- by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.  In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, form more stable families of their own.  We know this works.  So let’s do what works and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let’s give our kids that chance.  (Applause.)  Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job.  Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges.  So those German kids, they're ready for a job when they graduate high school.  They've been trained for the jobs that are there.  Now at schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools and City University of New York and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate's degree in computers or engineering.  We need to give every American student opportunities like this.  (Applause.)   And four years ago, we started Race to the Top -- a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, all for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year.  Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy.  And we’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering and math -- the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill the jobs that are there right now and will be there in the future. Now, even with better high schools, most young people will need some higher education.  It’s a simple fact the more education you’ve got, the more likely you are to have a good job and work your way into the middle class.  But today, skyrocketing costs price too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt. Through tax credits, grants and better loans, we’ve made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years.  But taxpayers can’t keep on subsidizing higher and higher and higher costs for higher education.  Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it’s our job to make sure that they do.  (Applause.) So tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid.  (Applause.) And tomorrow, my administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria -- where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.    Now, to grow our middle class, our citizens have to have access to the education and training that today’s jobs require.  But we also have to make sure that America remains a place where everyone who’s willing to work -- everybody who’s willing to work hard has the chance to get ahead. Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants.  (Applause.)  And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities -- they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  (Applause.)  Now is the time to do it.  Now is the time to get it done.  Now is the time to get it done.  (Applause.)  Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made -- putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.   Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship -- a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.  (Applause.)   And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.  (Applause.)    In other words, we know what needs to be done.  And as we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts.  So let’s get this done.  Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away.  And America will be better for it.  (Applause.)  Let’s get it done.  Let’s get it done.   But we can’t stop there.  We know our economy is stronger when our wives, our mothers, our daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence.  Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago.  And I now urge the House to do the same.  (Applause.)  Good job, Joe.  And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.  (Applause.)  We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages.  But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year.  Even with the tax relief we put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line.  That’s wrong.  That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, 19 states have chosen to bump theirs even higher. Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.  (Applause.) We should be able to get that done.  (Applause.) This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families.  It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead.  For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.  And a whole lot of folks out there would probably need less help from government.  In fact, working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher.  So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year -- let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.  (Applause.) Tonight, let’s also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead.  Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up.  Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job.  America is not a place where the chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny.  And that’s why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them. Let’s offer incentives to companies that hire Americans who’ve got what it takes to fill that job opening, but have been out of work so long that no one will give them a chance anymore. Let’s put people back to work rebuilding vacant homes in run-down neighborhoods.  And this year, my administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet.  We’ll work with local leaders to target resources at public safety, and education, and housing.   We’ll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest.  And we’ll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples, and do more to encourage fatherhood -- because what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.  And we want to encourage that.  We want to help that. (Applause.) Stronger families.  Stronger communities.  A stronger America.  It is this kind of prosperity -- broad, shared, built on a thriving middle class -- that has always been the source of our progress at home.  It’s also the foundation of our power and influence throughout the world.  Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who sacrifice every day to protect us.  Because of them, we can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda.  (Applause.)   Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women.  This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead.  Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan.  This drawdown will continue and by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.  (Applause.)    Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change.  We're negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions -- training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.  Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self.  (Applause.)  It's true, different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged -- from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa.  The threat these groups pose is evolving.  But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad or occupy other nations.  Instead, we'll need to help countries like Yemen, and Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali.  And where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.  (Applause.)   Now, as we do, we must enlist our values in the fight.  That's why my administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism efforts.  Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts.  I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word for it that we’re doing things the right way.  So in the months ahead, I will continue to engage Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.  (Applause.)  Of course, our challenges don’t end with al Qaeda.  America will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons.  The regime in North Korea must know they will only achieve security and prosperity by meeting their international obligations.  Provocations of the sort we saw last night will only further isolate them, as we stand by our allies, strengthen our own missile defense and lead the world in taking firm action in response to these threats.   Likewise, the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations, and we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)  At the same time, we’ll engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals, and continue leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands -- because our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead and meet our obligations. America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber-attacks.  (Applause.)  Now, we know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private emails.  We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets.  Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, our air traffic control systems.  We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy.   And that’s why, earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.  (Applause.) But now Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks.  This is something we should be able to get done on a bipartisan basis.  (Applause.)  Now, even as we protect our people, we should remember that today’s world presents not just dangers, not just threats, it presents opportunities.  To boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership.  And tonight, I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union -- because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.  (Applause.)  We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all -- not only because it creates new markets, more stable order in certain regions of the world, but also because it’s the right thing to do.  In many places, people live on little more than a dollar a day.  So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades by connecting more people to the global economy; by empowering women; by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve, and helping communities to feed, and power, and educate themselves; by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths; and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation, which is within our reach.  (Applause.)    You see, America must remain a beacon to all who seek freedom during this period of historic change.  I saw the power of hope last year in Rangoon, in Burma, when Aung San Suu Kyi welcomed an American President into the home where she had been imprisoned for years; when thousands of Burmese lined the streets, waving American flags, including a man who said, “There is justice and law in the United States.  I want our country to be like that.” In defense of freedom, we’ll remain the anchor of strong alliances from the Americas to Africa; from Europe to Asia.  In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy.  (Applause.)   We know the process will be messy, and we cannot presume to dictate the course of change in countries like Egypt, but we can -- and will -- insist on respect for the fundamental rights of all people.  We’ll keep the pressure on a Syrian regime that has murdered its own people, and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every Syrian.  And we will stand steadfast with Israel in pursuit of security and a lasting peace.  (Applause.)   These are the messages I'll deliver when I travel to the Middle East next month.  And all this work depends on the courage and sacrifice of those who serve in dangerous places at great personal risk –- our diplomats, our intelligence officers, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.  As long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military the world has ever known.  (Applause.)  We'll invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending.  We will ensure equal treatment for all servicemembers, and equal benefits for their families -- gay and straight.  (Applause.)  We will draw upon the courage and skills of our sisters and daughters and moms, because women have proven under fire that they are ready for combat.   We will keep faith with our veterans, investing in world-class care, including mental health care, for our wounded warriors -- (applause) -- supporting our military families; giving our veterans the benefits and education and job opportunities that they have earned.  And I want to thank my wife, Michelle, and Dr. Jill Biden for their continued dedication to serving our military families as well as they have served us. Thank you, honey.  Thank you, Jill.  (Applause.)   Defending our freedom, though, is not just the job of our military alone.  We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home.  That includes one of the most fundamental right of a democracy:  the right to vote.  (Applause.)  When any American, no matter where they live or what their party, are denied that right because they can’t afford to wait for five or six or seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals.  (Applause.)   So tonight, I’m announcing a nonpartisan commission to improve the voting experience in America.  And it definitely needs improvement.  I’m asking two long-time experts in the field -- who, by the way, recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney’s campaign -- to lead it.  We can fix this, and we will.  The American people demand it, and so does our democracy.  (Applause.) Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource:  our children.  It has been two months since Newtown.  I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence.  But this time is different.  Overwhelming majorities of Americans -- Americans who believe in the Second Amendment -- have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun.  (Applause.)  Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals.  Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.   Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress.  (Applause.)  Now, if you want to vote no, that’s your choice.  But these proposals deserve a vote.  Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun -- more than a thousand.  One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton.  She was 15 years old.  She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss.  She was a majorette.  She was so good to her friends they all thought they were her best friend.  Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration.  And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house. Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence.  They deserve a vote.  They deserve a vote.  (Applause.)  Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.  (Applause.)  The families of Newtown deserve a vote.  (Applause.) The families of Aurora deserve a vote.  (Applause.)  The families of Oak Creek and Tucson and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence –- they deserve a simple vote.  (Applause.)  They deserve a simple vote.   Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country.  In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight.  But we were never sent here to be perfect.  We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government. We were sent here to look out for our fellow Americans the same way they look out for one another, every single day, usually without fanfare, all across this country.  We should follow their example. We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez.  When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, she wasn’t thinking about how her own home was faring. Her mind was on the 20 precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.  We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor.  When Desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours.  And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say.  And hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line to support her -- because Desiline is 102 years old.  (Applause.)  And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read, “I voted.” (Applause.)  We should follow the example of a police officer named Brian Murphy.  When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and Brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety.  He fought back until help arrived and ordered his fellow officers to protect the safety of the Americans worshiping inside, even as he lay bleeding from 12 bullet wounds.  And when asked how he did that, Brian said, “That’s just the way we’re made.”  That’s just the way we’re made.  We may do different jobs and wear different uniforms, and hold different views than the person beside us.  But as Americans, we all share the same proud title -- we are citizens.  It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status.  It describes the way we’re made.  It describes what we believe.  It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations, that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter of our American story.   Thank you.  God bless you, and God bless these United States of America.  (Applause.)   END10:16 P.M.  Watch the Video February 12, 2013 10:00 PMThe 2013 State of the Union Address

Blog posts on this issue February 13, 2013 6:39 PM ESTImproving the Security of the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure

President Obama issued an Executive Order directing federal departments and agencies to use their existing authorities to provide better cybersecurity for the Nation, efforts that will by necessity involve increased collaboration with the private sector.

February 13, 2013 5:15 PM ESTOpen for Questions: The State of the Union and the Economy

Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, answered questions from the public about President Obama's State of the Union Address in an “Open for Questions” session moderated by Yahoo! Finance. Check it out below.

February 13, 2013 4:55 PM ESTFirst Lady Michelle Obama hosts a “Beasts of the Southern Wild” Movie Workshop for Students

The stars of the Oscar-nominated drama joined Mrs. Obama to help teach students about the hard work required to create a beautiful movie.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here