Texas A&M Student Body President Vetoes Bill To Defund LGBT Center

Student Body President John Claybrook

John Claybrook, Student Body President at Texas A&M University, has vetoed a bill passed by the student senate that would allow students to opt out of funding campus services if they have religious objections. Until it was revised at Wednesday night’s meeting, the bill specifically targeted the university’s GLBT Resource Center. Claybrook explained his veto in an open letter:

After much research and deliberation, I have confidently decided to veto S.B. 65-70, The Religious Funding Exemption bill. Even without the wording that specified particular groups that would be affected in the final version of this bill, the sentiment towards the bill has not changed and has caused great harm to our reputation as a student body and to the students feeling disenfranchised by the bill. [...]

Although much adjusted in its final form, the good accomplished through this bill pales in comparison to the damage done. The damage must stop today. Texas A&M students represent our core value of respect exceptionally and I’m very proud of the family at this university. Now, more than ever, is the time to show great resolve and come together, treating each other like the family that we are.

Claybrook pointed out that in addition to the bill’s negative sentiment, students do not currently have the ability to opt-out of student fees, so clarifying a process to do so “serves no purpose.”

The bill’s sponsor, Chris Woolsey, conceded, “it’s just how the democratic process works.” The senate may consider a veto override when it meets again on April 17, but the bill did not garner the two-thirds votes that would require.

View the original article here

50 Vetoes: How States Can Stop the Obama Health Care Law

Despite surviving a number of threats, President Obama’s health care law remains harmful, unstable, and unpopular. It also remains vulnerable to repeal, largely because Congress and the Supreme Court have granted each state the power to veto major provisions of the law before they take effect in 2014.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) itself empowers states to block the employer mandate, to exempt many of their low- and middle-income taxpayers from the individual mandate, and to reduce federal deficit spending, simply by not establishing a health insurance “exchange.” Supporters of the law do not care for this feature, yet they adopted it because they had no choice. The bill would not have become law without it.

To date, 34 states, accounting for roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population, have refused to create Exchanges. Under the statute, this shields employers in those states from a $2,000 per worker tax that will apply in states that are creating Exchanges (e.g., California, Colorado, New York). Those 34 states have exempted at least 8 million residents from taxes as high as $2,085 on families of four earning as little as $24,000. They have also reduced federal deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Obama administration is nevertheless attempting to tax those employers and individuals, contrary to the plain language of the PPACA and congressional intent, and to deny millions of Americans the opportunity to purchase low-cost, high-deductible coverage. Employers, consumers, and even state officials in those 34 states can challenge those illegal taxes in court, as Oklahoma has done. States can also block those illegal taxes—and even stop the federal government from operating an Exchange—by approving a strengthened version of the Health Care Freedom Act.

The PPACA’s Medicaid expansion, which would cost individual states up to $53 billion over its first 10 years, is now optional for states, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. Some 16 states have announced they will not expand their programs, while half of the states remain undecided. Yet the Obama administration is trying to coerce states into implementing parts of the expansion that the Court rendered optional. States can replicate Maine’s lawsuit challenging this arbitrary attempt to limit the Court’s ruling.

Collectively, states can shield all employers and at least 12 million taxpayers from the law’s new taxes, and still reduce federal deficits by $1.7 trillion, simply by refusing to establish Exchanges or expand Medicaid.

Congress and President Obama have already repealed the third new entitlement program the PPACA created—the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act—as well as funding for the “co-op” plans meant to serve as an alternative to a “public option.” A critical mass of states exercising their vetoes over Exchanges and the Medicaid expansion can force Congress to reconsider, and hopefully repeal, the rest of this counterproductive law. Real health care reform is impossible until that happens.

View the original article here

Chris Christie Vetoes Help For Homeowners In State Plagued By Foreclosures

Our guest blogger is David Sanchez, a Special Assistant with the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Economic and Housing Policy Teams.

New Jersey is facing a twin crisis of foreclosures and lack of affordable housing, but Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently vetoed two bills that would have brightened the outlook for New Jersey residents struggling to afford homes.

The first bill would have empowered New Jersey’s Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency to purchase foreclosed homes and transform them into affordable housing. In doing so, New Jersey would combat the crime and blight brought about by vacant homes, while also increasing housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.

The bill had support not only from housing advocates, but from a broad swatch of businesses. What’s more, it would have been implemented without requiring state appropriations.

The second bill would have improved New Jersey’s program to help unemployed or underemployed homeowners make their mortgage payments. This program, funded by a $300 million grant from the federal government’s Hardest Hit Fund program, has badly underperformed for years: according to the most recent statistics, the program has denied assistance to more than double the number of applicants it has helped, and it has spent less than one twentieth of the funds available (although changes have recently been announced that may improve the program). The bill would have mandated that the program respond to applicants and issue aid more quickly.

Christie’s decision to veto these bills is puzzling, to say the least, given the challenges facing New Jersey’s housing market and families. While the housing market is improving in most of the country, it’s getting worse in New Jersey. New Jersey’s percentage of homeowners who are not current on their mortgages increased the most of any state in 2012, and delinquencies remain especially elevated in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Likewise, New Jersey has the second highest percentage of homes in the foreclosure process, with as many as 150,000 foreclosed homes soon to be on the market.

At the same time, New Jersey faces a dire shortage of affordable housing units, with half of all homeowners and an even larger number of renters facing cost burdens.

Unfortunately, Christie’s inaction on New Jersey’s housing challenges is nothing new. Instead of helping New Jersey homeowners, Christie used all of the state’s share of the landmark National Mortgage Settlement to fill budget holes in the state’s general fund. Christie is also attempting to weaken the process by which New Jersey guarantees that affordable housing will be built in communities across the state.

View the original article here