President Obama Signs Pennsylvania Disaster Declaration

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and ordered Federal aid to supplement commonwealth and local recovery efforts in the area affected by Hurricane Sandy during the period of October 26 to November 8, 2012.

Federal funding is available to commonwealth and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy in the counties of Bedford, Bucks, Cameron, Dauphin, Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Monroe, Northampton, Pike, Potter, Somerset, Sullivan, and Wyoming.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for the entire commonwealth.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Thomas J. McCool as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the commonwealth and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT:  FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@DHS.GOV

We'll soon reach a milestone in Afghanistan -- when Afghan forces take full responsibility for their nation's security and the war draws to a close.

The President asks Jacob Lew -- the current White House chief of staff -- to serve as the next Treasury Secretary.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

DREAMer’s Family Released After ICE Agents Detain Them

Federal immigration agents raided the home of Erika Andiola, an undocumented immigrant and co-founder of the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition, and detained her mother and brother, who are also undocumented. Initially, Andiola tweeted that her brother told her that her mom would be deported “first thing in the morning.” Her brother was released early, and it was later announced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials would exercise prosecutorial discretion to release Andiola’s mother, Maria Arreola.

Before Andiola’s mother was released, the immigrant rights community quickly organized a protest outside of the Department of Homeland Security’s office and calls to state and federal offices asking for her family’s release.

This is not the first example of an immigrant’s deportation being halted because of media and grassroots attention to the case. In June, a young undocumented immigrant was granted a one-year deportation reprieve one day after the Washington Post wrote a story about her case. “It makes me extremely sad that we had to go through all of this…to stop one deportation,” Andiola said on a call with reporters. “We don’t have to do this.”

Marielena Hincapié, executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center, said this case is another example of why the nation needs immigration reform. Even though Maria Arreola has been released, there is no guarantee that Andiola’s mother won’t be picked up by ICE agents again because she has a previous removal order from 1988. The only certainty would be if the Obama administration granted her deferred action. “We cannot keep fighting these deportation cases on dreamer at a time, one worker at a time, one family at a time,” Hincapié said.

There have been a record number of deportations under President Obama, and last year, the Obama administration announced a case-by-case review of deportations to ensure that lower-priority deportation cases “are being set aside so we can focus more on our more serious cases of convicted criminals and other high priority categories.” Obama has taken steps to try to limit deportations that separate families living in the U.S., but as a new report shows that immigration officials detained more people in 2012 than the federal bureau of prisons holds, officials are not using the discretionary policies available.

The U.S. also spends more on immigration enforcement — $18 billion — than every other federal law enforcement agency combined. And in two years, ICE agents have deported more than 200,000 undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens, making up 23 percent of all deportations between July 1, 2010, and Sept. 31, 2012.

View the original article here

73 Percent Of Evangelical Leaders Support Increased Gun Regulations

Vice President Joe Biden, the head of President Obama’s task force to curb gun violence, held meetings with both supporters and opponents of stricter gun restrictions, and his task force is set to make its recommendations by next Tuesday. Biden met with a dozen religious leaders Wednesday night, when he urged them that there was moral reason to take action.

New polling shows that religious leaders agree. According to a survey from the National Association of Evangelicals, nearly three-quarters of evangelical leaders support increasing restrictions on guns as a way to curb America’s gun violence epidemic, according to a release from the organization:

When asked whether the government should increase gun regulations, 73 percent said it should.

“Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives,” said Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). “The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also called for increased gun regulations in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. “With regard to the regulation of fire arms, first, the intent to protect one’s loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible,” USCCB said in a December statement. As far back as 1978, the USCCB has advocated for stronger gun restrictions, including “the registration of handguns” and “the licensing of handgun owners.” In the 1978 statement, the USCCB said it believed “that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police, military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.”

And Daniel Darling, an evangelical pastor in Chicago, where 87 percent of the city’s 500 homicides were gun related last year, wrote that people of faith should “advocate making it harder for people to acquire guns, even sensible weapons purchased for self-defense or hunting. Gun ownership should be a privilege earned by good behavior and conferred only on the most trustworthy of our citizens.”

A majority (52 percent) of religious people supported stricter gun laws in a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in August 2012, months before the Sandy Hook massacre focused the nation’s attention on gun violence. (HT Faith In Public Life)

View the original article here

Major Flu Outbreak Could Slow US Economy Further

Boston Declares Flu An Emergency A Boeing 787 Dreamliner experienced brake problems today, with CNBC's Larry Kudlow; and Boston's Mayor is declaring this year's flu season and public health emergency, with Alysha Palumbo, NECN.

This particularly devastating flu season started five weeks earlier than usual and caught many people off guard. Flu season usually peaks in late January or early February but by November the flu was already severe and widespread in some parts of the South and Southeast, and now in the Northeast and Midwest.

There have been more than 2,257 hospitalizations associated with the flu, according to the CDC. Some 18 children in the U.S have died from it.

The city of Boston has declared a pubic health emergency as a result of the flu outbreak. Massachusetts said some 18 people have died in the state from flu related illness. South Carolina reports 22 dead so far. Two people died in Sacramento, California. In Minnesota, 900 people were hospitalized because of the flu and four people died.

For the fourth week in a row, the proportion of people seeing health care providers for flu like illness is above the national average and jumped from 2.8 percent to 5.6 percent in that time, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last season's proportion peaked at 2.2 percent, the CDC reports.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employee absences are traditionally up during the winter flu season -- some 32 percent higher than the rest of the year. The highest number of absentees was 3.3 million in 2008 -- a severe flu season.

Employees who are sick and go into work aren't really doing their colleagues any favors, said John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc, an outplacement firm.

"Sick employees may think they're doing the right thing by going in but the fact is they are only making matters worse by exposing themsevles to others," Challenger said.

"The business culture is changing and I think most firms are more accepting of people calling in sick, especially during the flu season," said Challenger. (Read more: More Than Flu Hitting)

"What a business should be doing is offering flu shots, and giving comp days to workers who are sick and feel like coming in. Coming in sick and doing sub par work won't really help," argued Challenger.

View the original article here

REPORT: Rape Often Targeted, Underreported In India

Protester at Dec. 18 rally in New Dehli

A report from a UN-affiliated working group on human rights in India exposes the constant struggle that women face, as sexual violence is used by security forces to implement their whims and targeted against lower castes.

Drafted by the Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN (WGHR), “Human Rights in India: Status Report 2012” covers the gamut of human rights failures that take place within the state. Several sections deal with sexual assault and violence towards women in both conflict zones and during peacetime, highlighting the neglect that many of these cases face from the legal system and authorities. Among other statistics the WGHR uncovered, one of the most staggering is that “every 60 minutes two women are raped, and every six hours a young married woman is found beaten to death, burnt or driven to suicide.”

Security forces within India are frequent perpetrators of violence against women, according to the report, though the stigma associated with victimhood results in cases of rape being under reported. At one point, the report accused the armed forces of thwarting investigations where “circumstantial evidence strongly indicates the involvement of armed forces.” Prosecution of those in the armed forces discharged for committing rape is particularly difficult as well, thanks to provisions in India’s legal system that require a waiver from the state or central government to allow charges to go forward.

Women of the Dalit group — the lowest place in the Indian caste system — face a particular stigma and are the subject of a disproportionate amount of violence:

Violence against Dalit women is targeted, 361 and atrocities committed against them include: verbal abuse and sexual epithets, naked parading, pulling out of teeth, tongue and nails, and violence, including murder. Dalit women are also threatened by rape as part of collective violence by higher castes. The National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) reported a total of 1,349 rape cases of Dalit women for 2010, with the state of Madhya Pradesh reporting 316 cases, followed by Uttar Pradesh with 311 cases. There are cases of kidnapping and abduction of women, with Uttar Pradesh alone accounting nearly 48.5% of the 511 cases for 2010. Notably, there is no disaggregated data collected on atrocities against Dalit women.

The report comes at a time when violence against women is in the spotlight in India, following the horrific rape and death of a young woman in the capital city New Dehli. Mass protests broke out throughout the country in the aftermath of the vicious attack on the victim — identified as Jyoti Signh Pandi — with the potential for a change in India’s laws beginning to take shape.

Meanwhile, the trial against the accused attackers has already been closed to the media due to the interest the case has generated. The trial is sure to be contentious as defense lawyers have already both engaged in blaming the victim for the attack and claiming that police tortured a confession out of one of the defendants.

View the original article here

UPDATE 2-Merck begins overseas recall of HDL cholesterol drug

* Merck says recalling drug from wholesalers

* Says retail supplies likely available until mid-March

* Says will discourage doctors from prescribing drug

Jan 11 (Reuters) - Merck & Co said it is recalling Tredaptive, its medicine to raise "good" HDL cholesterol levels, in overseas markets where it is sold, after it failed to prevent heart problems in a large study and raised safety concerns.

The medicine is not approved in the United States but the U.S. drugmaker sells it in about 40 countries.

Merck said it would recall stocks of Tredaptive now held by wholesalers, but that pharmacies can continue to dispense their remaining supplies. Even so, the company said it plans to discourage doctors from prescribing the pill based on negative findings from the trial which were announced last month. The study followed more than 25,000 patients in Europe and China for almost four years.

The company said it will encourage doctors to consider alternative treatments to control cholesterol, but advised patients not to discontinue Tredaptive without first speaking with their physicians.

Merck spokeswoman Pam Eisele said the company expects available retail supplies of Tredaptive to be exhausted by mid-March.

Tredaptive combines an extended-release form of niacin with another drug meant to reduce facial flushing, a side effect of niacin. The medicine has annual sales of less than $20 million. That makes it a tiny product for Merck, which has global annual revenue of about $50 billion.

Merck in December said Tredaptive did no better in the study at preventing heart attacks, deaths or strokes than traditional statin drugs that lower "bad" LDL cholesterol.

Moreover, Merck said the medicine significantly raised the incidence of some types of nonfatal but serious side effects in the study. They included blood, lymph and gastrointestinal problems, as well as respiratory and skin issues.

Tredaptive was approved in the European Union in 2008, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was unwilling to approve the pill until Merck conducted the costly long-term study to better assess its safety and effectiveness.

Some analysts had expected Tredaptive to capture annual global sales of more than $1 billion, if it were to win approval in the United States.

View the original article here

Don’t Believe The Media Hype: Obamacare Is Not Responsible For Double Digit Premium Hikes

Small businesses and individual health policy holders could face dramatic premium spikes this year, as some insurers file double digit increases and attribute the changes to the Affordable Care Act. The sticker shock is mostly the result of rising health care costs — and the prevalence of sicker beneficiaries in health insurance risk pools. The media, however, is blaming health care reform.

For instance, Friday’s Politico reported that premiums are increasing across the country as “All those new consumer benefits packed into the health reform law — birth control without a co-pay, free preventive care and limits on when insurers can turn down a customer — had to be paid for somehow.” Policy holders may experience 10 to 20 percent rate hikes, it warns, as insurers are “working the health reform law’s 2014 fees into their 2013 bills.”

So how much is Obamacare responsible for? Five, maybe eight percent? The answer is less than two.

Insurers are arguing that the costs of Obamacare’s annual fee on the industry, its requirement that companies contribute to a reinsurance program, and new benefits and regulations have to be passed down to consumers. “There’s a massive new health insurance tax that starts in 2014,” Robert Zirkelbach, the spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans told Politico. “For policies that are sold in 2013 and extend into next year, there’s going to be taxes imposed. … As a result, like all taxes, they will be reflected in premiums charged.”

There are new costs in 2014, but they have little to do with reform. Consider the insurers’ own rate justification filings, in which companies have to substantiate the raises. Aetna in Pennsylvania, for instance, seeks to increase rates by an average of 16.49 percent, but as it explains in its filing, 63.18 percent of the increase is attributed to the “cost of providing healthcare services to policyholders.” The Affordable Care Act is responsible for a tiny portion of the increase:

Impact of New Taxes and Fees

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes several new taxes and fees payable in 2014, including two that specifically apply to insured products — the health insurer fee and the reinsurance contribution. These new fees result in additional costs and are reflected in our updated rates for policies that extend into 2014. The overall impact of these costs on this filing is as follows:
* Health Insurer Fee: 1.0%
* Reinsurance Contribution: 0.5%

Washington & Lee Law School professor Timothy Jost predicted that “insurers in the individual market will benefit substantially from reinsurance payments” and will be “spared some administrative costs-notably the cost of underwriting which should be quite substantial.” ” The cost of new benefits should not be a big deal,” he continued, since “most of the costs of health insurance are for inpatient, outpatient, physician, lab, radiology, and pharmaceuticals, which virtually all insurers now cover.”

“I suspect that what is going on is a combination of legitimate concern about new costs, overestimation of what those costs will be and underestimation of offsetting savings, taking a chance to attack the ACA, and grabbing the opportunity to make some profit,” Jost added.

The Affordable Care Act reforms the individual health care market and allows businesses and individuals to take advantage of large risk pools by purchasing coverage through state-based health care exchanges. Over time, insurers will see an influx of new customers, many of whom will benefit from the law’s tax credits and will see their health care bills decrease.

In the short term, however, regulators must remain vigilant. As Sarah Lueck, of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), told ThinkProgress, “The question of whether these increases are justified is something that regulators should closely scrutinize.”

View the original article here