The Affordable Care Act didn’t survive entirely as passed—somewhat lost amidst the intense focus on the individual mandate was a ruling that part of the law’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s modification of the law probably won’t have a fundamental, long-term impact, but does make it easier for rogue Republican governors to exempt their states from participating in the expansion—and could cost millions of low-income, uninsured Americans a chance at government health care.
Go ahead and wade through the cacophony of responses to the Supreme Court decision. It should be a fascinating excursion through society’s exposed soul at its finest, and at its worst. Some of the responses you will hear will rely on refined cognitive processes and others on fundamental reflexive emotions.
WASHINGTON -- The last thing House progressives want is for the Supreme Court to strike down President Barack Obama's health care law. But if the high court rules Thursday that some or all of the law is unconstitutional, progressives are ready to renew their push for the model of health care they wanted all along: the single-payer option.
Public Employees Elect New Leader in a Time of Crisis
LOS ANGELES - The country's largest public employee union has elected its first African-American president, who stands to become perhaps the leading voice in organized labor's fight-back against the fiercest attack on government workers and
services in modern times.
A number of post-mortem analyses surfaced almost immediately, and they were somewhat helpful in conveying various understandings for the defeat of the recall effort against Scott Walker in Wisconsin. They got most of the immediate facts straight. But they were lacking in various respects. We need a deeper social and political analysis to understand some of the other factors behind the defeat. This is key for the development of future strategies and tactics.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is pulling no punches when it comes to the US Supreme Court’s recent pattern of decisions regarding the way in which corporations can engage in politics versus the way in which unions can engage.
“[This] Supreme Court says you cannot do anything to hamper the First Amendment rights of corporations,” argues Trumka. “But when it comes to workers, they haven’t seen a detriment to the First Amendment that they haven’t liked yet.”
A senior White House official said Monday that regulations to toughen oversight of oil-and-gas “fracking” on federal lands are on track despite a two-month extension of the public comment period announced last week.
Heather Zichal, the top White House energy aide, told reporters that she expects the Interior Department rules regulating hydraulic fracturing, dubbed fracking, to be completed by year’s end.
A debate now rages in Europe over whether fiscal austerity—that is, higher taxes and less spending—helps or hinders growth. That's progress of sorts. Not long ago, European policy makers seemed stuck on the notion that austerity promotes growth. Yes, we were supposed to believe that countries grow faster when their governments spend less and tax more.
The U.S. Supreme Court may still retain some familiarity with the Constitution when it comes to deciding the nuances of cases involving immigration policy and lifetime incarceration. But when it comes to handing off control of American democracy to corporations, the court continue to reject the intents of the founders and more than a century of case law to assure that CEOs are in charge.
n a scathing op-ed in Monday's New York Times, former US president Jimmy Carter issued a sharp rebuke against a series of Obama administration policies and positions that he described as an affront to human rights and argued are helping to create a US foreign policy that "abets our enemies and alienates our friends."
Last week, nurses rallied, bank staff marched, conservatives coalesced and finance professionals petitioned—all in support of a global tax on Wall Street speculation. You wouldn’t know it from the headlines (Financial Times: “Push for EU-wide ‘Robin Hood Tax’ ends”), but by week’s end, that elusive goal was closer than ever.
or the purpose of our analysis here, an individual as "extremely poor" if he or she resides in a family unit whose income is less than half of the federal poverty threshold. To give you a sense of what that means, the awful extremity of extreme poverty: a single person under 65 must have made less than $5,851, and a family of four must have made less than $11,509. (In my opinion, it is likely that for the majority of the extreme poor, taxable income is zero.)
The Supreme Court's decision to strike down most of Arizona's immigration law won't slow the movement it provoked.
The Supreme Court ruling to uphold a key provision in Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law may send out a last shred of hope to “attrition through enforcement” Republican candidates like Mitt Romney and other states’ rights champions to unbuckle their own immigration policies.