

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Dave Lemmon, Director of Communications
Robert Meissner, Deputy Director of Communications
Bryan Fisher, Press Secretary
202-628-3030
During last night's presidential debate, issues about Medicare, Medicaid, and health care received considerable attention. The following is the statement of Ron Pollack, Executive Director of the health consumer organization Families USA, about that portion of the debate:
During last night's presidential debate, issues about Medicare, Medicaid, and health care received considerable attention. The following is the statement of Ron Pollack, Executive Director of the health consumer organization Families USA, about that portion of the debate:
"While pundits have largely agreed about who won the presidential debate based on style, it is clear who had the better health care facts. Governor Romney made a number of assertions about health care that were breathtakingly false and misleading. His admissions were also noteworthy because they showed how damaging his health care proposals are for America's seniors and families.
"Governor Romney's false and misleading health care comments were numerous, including the following:
"First, he said that he proposes no cutbacks for current Medicare beneficiaries. This is absolutely and demonstrably untrue. By repealing ObamaCare, he would cut prescription drug benefits for seniors and people with disabilities who have high medicine costs, and he would eliminate free preventive care services like check-ups, mammograms, and colonoscopies. Already, 25.7 million Medicare beneficiaries have received free preventive health care services to keep them healthy--but Governor Romney's proposed repeal of ObamaCare would take those free benefits away.
"Second, he impliedtime and time again that ObamaCare will hurt Medicare beneficiaries by cutting the program by $716 billion over 10years. Quite the contrary. ObamaCare stabilizes the Medicare program by adding eight years to the life of the Medicare hospital trust fund. It doesn't reduce benefits at all for seniors or people with disabilities, and it protects them by reducing insurance and pharmaceutical company waste. This improves the program's solvency for current and future seniors. Ironically, ObamaCare in this respect is identical to a proposal by Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, which Governor Romney now repudiates.
"Third, Governor Romney says he will improve Medicaid by turning it into a block grant that would give governors greater discretion about how to run the program in a way that will be more helpful for the children, seniors needing long-term care, and low-income families that depend on the program. This is beyond nonsense. It is impossible to improve the program by cutting huge amounts of federal funds from the program--cuts of one-third by the next decade--cuts that states simply can't make up given their current fiscal circumstances. The ultimate result is that millions of people inevitably will lose their health care lifeline.
"Fourth, Governor Romney said that 20 million people will lose health insurance under ObamaCare when it goes into effect. This assertion deserves its own special place in the Chutzpah Hall of Fame. As the Congressional Budget Office found, under ObamaCare, health coverage would expand to more than 30 million people who would otherwise be uninsured. In contrast, under Governor Romney's current proposals, the number of uninsured would increase to 78 million people within a decade, an increase of more than 60 percent from the numbers in the latest Census Bureau report.
"At least as revealing as these claims were the admissions that Governor Romney made during the debate. Two very important ones deserve special attention.
"The governor admitted that future seniors will experience a very different Medicare program than the one that exists today. Specifically, he wants to change the program into a voucher-care system that will put seniors to the mercy of private insurance companies. Under that system, seniors would receive a government voucher to cover a portion of private insurance premiums,and seniors would pay the remaining premium costs out of their own pockets. Over time, as the value of government vouchers covers smaller and smaller portions of insurance premiums, seniors would pay more and more. Increasingly, Medicare would become unaffordable.
"Additionally, when asked how he would replace ObamaCare, he admitted,and his campaign spokesperson, Eric Fehrnstrom, confirmed,that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected from insurance company coverage denials only if they'd had continuous health coverage in the past. As a result, the millions of people who were previously denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, and cancer) would be left out in the cold.
"Governor Romney's health care admissions, and certainly his breathtaking falsehoods and misleading comments, are not a recipe for improving our nation's health care system. Indeed, his vision for Medicare, Medicaid, and the health care system takes us in the wrong direction for achieving high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans."
Families USA is a national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Working at the national, state, and community levels, we have earned a national reputation as an effective voice for health care consumers for 25 years.
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake."
A coalition of progressive groups is pressuring Senate Democrats to oppose President Donald Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton III to lead America's spy agencies over his role in helping the administration use the legal system to attack journalists.
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that Clayton, who currently serves as the US attorney for Manhattan, had issued subpoenas to four of its journalists after they'd reported on security concerns related to the luxury jet gifted by the Qatari government, which Trump has begun to use in place of Air Force One against the wishes of the Secret Service.
The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the goal of the investigation was to prosecute leakers who spoke to the press about the plane's lacking security features. According to the Times, the FBI requested that it hold off publishing the story and reveal the names of its anonymous sources, which it refused to do.
A top newsroom lawyer for the Times described the subpoenas as "an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”
On Monday, the group Demand Progress and nearly three dozen other progressive advocacy groups sent a letter to Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).
It urged them to oppose the nomination of Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence, a role previously held by Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned in May.
"The committee need not speculate how Clayton would exercise the enormous powers of the federal government: He is demonstrating it now," the coalition wrote. "A federal prosecutor who will weaponize the grand jury process against reporters—and their sources—to punish disclosures unwelcome to the president has shown the Senate the precise instinct that is disqualifying in a director of national intelligence."
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake," the letter continued.
The coalition emphasized that Clayton, whose confirmation hearing in the Senate is scheduled for Wednesday, has no experience in intelligence work, having spent most of his career as a corporate lawyer on Wall Street. He was tapped to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump's first term and then to serve as US attorney for the Southern District of New York in his second.
"More troublingly," it said, "Clayton has spent his time in this position weaponizing his authority on behalf of the president, particularly by politicizing high-profile investigations."
As Trump came under fire for his relationship with the late child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, Clayton was assigned to "take the lead" of a Department of Justice probe that selectively targeted a list of the president's enemies.
Clayton also oversaw the process of redacting files related to Epstein before their release to the public, which was met with criticism for including identifying information of abuse survivors, including nude photos, while blacking out the names of Trump and other prominent individuals despite a mandate from Congress.
The letter also notes Clayton's amplifying of Trump's debunked theories of election fraud in California as part of efforts to restrict mail-in voting, as well as his defense of Trump's $1.8 billion "slush fund," which a judge ruled this week constituted an improper act of self-dealing.
"We are living with the serious consequences of unqualified Trump loyalists, blindly pursuing the "MAGA" agenda at agencies like the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Health and Human Services, and more," the letter concludes. "Adding the [intelligence community] to this list—especially in light of Clayton's shocking willingness to weaponize federal power to satisfy the president's political grievances... will have devastating consequences for our national security and the civil liberties of Americans."
A coalition of conservation groups sued the Trump administration in federal court on Tuesday over its move to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats.
"Since 1973, the ESA has served as the nation's most effective conservation law, saving numerous imperiled species from extinction and moving them toward recovery," states the complaint, filed in the District of Washington state. It argues that the rescission "defies the text and purpose of the statute, 50 years of administrative policy, and US Supreme Court precedent."'
The coalition is made up of the Center for Biological Diversity, Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, and is represented by Earthjustice.
"Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat, and sleep is a basic foundation of the Endangered Species Act," said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles in a statement, also stressing that the decision conflicts with not only the ESA but also decades of legal precedent. "Now more than ever, imperiled fish, birds, and wildlife need protection to survive and recover."
Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at Sierra Club, warned that "without the habitat protections offered by the harm rule, countless species would be forced onto a path towards extinction."
For example, "roads built for logging and other human access destroy grizzly bear habitat and the bear's ability to safely use its habitat," said Swan View Coalition chair Keith Hammer. "Weakening the harm rule will allow industry to devastate the habitat grizzly bears and many other wildlife species depend on for their survival."
Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed to not only grizzlies but also some of the other specific species that could be impacted by the administration's decision.
"It's beyond tragic that as the world's scientists warn us of an extinction crisis threatening to unravel our shared future, the Trump administration is yanking basic protections from our most endangered wildlife," Greenwald said. "There's just no way to protect endangered animals like spotted owls, Florida panthers, or grizzly bears without protecting the places they live."
In fact, as Oregon Wild staff attorney John Persell, noted, "habitat loss is the leading driver of extinction."
"This gutting of the Endangered Species Act is part of a broader assault on our bedrock environmental values," Persell also emphasized. "From public lands to wildlife to clean air and drinking water, the Trump administration is determined to waste, loot, and pollute America's natural heritage."
Separately, the group Defenders of Wildlife sent a letter to the departments of Commerce and the Interior about its intent to sue over the ESA rescission, which was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday by their respective agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
"The law has been clear for decades," said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. "Rescinding this definition is wholly out of bounds and misaligned with the vast majority of Americans who support protecting and recovering endangered species."
"We will use the full force of the law to fight back and prevent industry from unfettered destruction of critical forests, streams, deserts, oceans, and coastlines," Davenport pledged.
The rescission came just a day after President Donald Trump signed proclamations dramatically shrinking the size of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
As with Trump's repeated attacks on the ESA, his targeting of the two monuments dates back to his first administration.
Taylor McKinnon, Southwest director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that "gutting Utah’s national monuments to enrich polluting extractive corporations shows Trump's extreme disdain for Americans' shared natural heritage. It's a national embarrassment. These monuments protect some of America's most iconic landscapes and rich biodiversity. We'll fight like hell to safeguard their future."
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," said US Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent oil prices back upward, and experts are warning that means more economic pain for working families in the coming months.
The price of Brent crude, which had fallen under $71 per barrel in late June after the US and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to wind down the conflict, has since surged back above $85 per barrel as of Tuesday, days after Trump declared the ceasefire between the two countries to be over.
Rising oil costs mean that the price of gasoline, which has similarly been dropping over the last month, will again start to rise. Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday projected that, based on the current surge in oil prices, the US is "days away" from seeing the average price of gas go back over $4 per gallon.
The renewed hostilities with Iran came amid signs of inflationary pressures in the US easing. Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Tuesday showed consumer prices in June rose by less than expected, with lower energy prices delivering relief.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers argued that while Tuesday's inflation data was positive news, the recent fighting between the US and Iran means it could be short-lived.
"Inflation remains high, is well above the Fed's target, and the ceasefire with Iran is over," Wolfers cautioned, referring to the Federal Reserve.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said the resumption of the illegal war would "continue hammering Americans’ budgets at home."
"Gas prices have already started to rise again and last month’s inflation data is stale," said Jacquez. "Trump’s debacle in the Middle East will have lasting, layered effects on our economy for months to come. Working families struggling to make ends meet should lay blame squarely on the president."
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, said the latest consumer price data show "it's still tough for middle-class and moderate-income Americans," as "inflation is wiping out wage gains for many."
More ominously, Long added, "The question is whether this relief is only temporary as the war in Iran restarts."
Project management professional Larry Boorstein warned Trump against spiking the football over the relatively tame inflation data from last month.
"Prices are down because oil prices dropped after the US-Iran MOU," Boorstein wrote. "Prices for food, both at home and away from home, increased, as did prices for shelter. Energy prices fell enough to more than offset increases in food and shelter prices. What's not so good is Trump declared the MOU dead July 8. Oil prices are ticking up again."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) put the economic damage caused by the Iran war into perspective by noting that it has cost US consumers over $56 billion so far in the form of higher gas prices, or just under $500 per household.
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," wrote Lofgren.